HAS SCOTUS SECURED OUR DEFEAT ?

"America is at war with radical Islamists," Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in today's stunning SCOTUS decision, adding that it "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

I am probably as shocked as you are at the news. This is a defeat for you and me, friends. Make no mistake about it.

Never before in this country's history have judges decided to tie the hands of a commander in chief in time of war, essentially conferring constitutional rights on terrorists! Five radical activist justices have decided what the Constitution should say, not what it does say. They're writing the laws that determine how we can fight this war!

Sweet God Almighty.

District Court judges will now decide whether a prisoner of war taken from the battlefield and held at Gitmo is entitled to the SAME rights we are under our Constitution. This from the same court that ruled in Roe v. Wade it is legal to murder unborn humans. That ruled in Kelo v. New London that your private property can be taken by the government for profit? Lord almighty, what kind of perverted thinking is this?

Chief Justice John Roberts filed a separate dissent defending the alternative process to judicial hearings, calling them "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants."

Are they deliberately trying to undermine our efforts in this war? These terrorists have been detained to get them off the battlefield, so we can question them, so we can protect ourselves against these slimeballs who think nothing of flying planes into our buildings, committing atrocities on the "infidels". WTF???

Both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia issued dissenting opinions, and all four dissenters (Alito & Thomas) joined in both dissents. Justice Scalia warns that the ruling “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

“The game of bait-and-switch that today's opinion plays upon the Nation's Commander-in-Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." Justice Scalia's 25-page dissenting opinion concludes, "The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today. I dissent.”

From Scotus Blog (with my comments in black):

In a stunning blow to the Bush Administration in its war-on-terrorism policies, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign nationals held at Guantanamo Bay have a right to pursue habeas challenges to their detention. The Court, dividing 5-4, ruled that Congress had not validly taken away habeas rights. If Congress wishes to suspend habeas, it must do so only as the Constitution allows — when the country faces rebellion or invasion.

Earth to Scotus: We ARE engaged in an invasion! Infiltration. Assault. Subversion. All out war. Just shaking my head here at the illogic of this ruling...

The Court stressed that it was not ruling that the detainees are entitled to be released — that is, entitled to have writs issued to end their confinement. That issue, it said, is left to the District Court judges who will be hearing the challenges.

District Court Judges will now decide who our enemy combatants are?!?

The Court also said that “we do not address whether the President has authority to detain” individuals during the war on terrorism, and hold them at the U.S. Naval base in Cuba; that, too, it said, is to be considered first by the District judges. Unfreaking-believable.

The Court also declared that detainees do not have to go through the special civilian court review process that Congress created in 2005, since that is not an adequate substitute for habeas rights. The Court refused to interpret the Detainee Treatment Act — as the Bush Administration had suggested — to include enough legal protection to make it an adequate replacement for habeas. Congress, it concluded, unconstitutionally suspended the writ in enacting that Act. Tell that one to Abraham Lincoln...

Radio host and Constitutional attorney Mark Levin gives us his first pass at the ruling:

While I am still reviewing the 5-4 decision written by Anthony Kennedy, apparently giving GITMO detainees access to our civilian courts, at the outset I am left to wonder whether all POWs will now have access to our civilian courts? After all, you would think lawful enemy combatants have a better claim in this regard than unlawful enemy combatants. And if POWs have access to our civilian courts, how do our courts plan to handle the thousands, if not tens of thousands of cases, that will be brought to them in future conflicts?

It has been the objective of the left-wing bar to fight aspects of this war in our courtrooms, where it knew it would have a decent chance at victory. So complete is the Court's disregard for the Constitution and even its own precedent now that anything is possible.

And what was once considered inconceivable is now compelled by the Constitution, or so five justices have ruled. I fear for my country. I really do. And AP, among others, reports this story as a defeat for "the Bush administration." Really? I see it as a defeat for the nation.

On the Guantanamo ruling, John McCain said he hasn’t read the opinion yet, but said the ruling “obviously concerns me." This from the man who wants to shut down Gitmo...

“We should pay attention to Justice Roberts,” McCain said, adding, "It is a decision the Supreme Court has made and now we need to move forward.” He reiterated his support for closing Guantanamo Bay."

Aaargh! Of much concern is John McCain's position on judges versus his own policies. On that point, Levin observes:

McCain undoubtedly supports the 5-4 decision, yet the justices who voted against it, and argued strenuously against it, are of the kind McCain claims to want on the bench. We have seen the same issue arise respecting campaign finance. This is not to say that McCain won't nominate originalists to the bench. But if he does, he will be nominating to the Court individuals who are better adherents to the Constitution than he is.

Scotus' decision is sure to be furiously debated today and in the days ahead. It's already created a firestorm on the blogosphere, being hotly debated by legions of bloggers.

I'm not a legal expert, but I know this is a blow to our national security, a further undermining by the liberal left on our ability to defend ourselves against a culture hell bent on our destruction. Just unbelievably myopic thinking.

Wasn't it Abraham Lincoln who warned that the Constitution is not a suicide pact? So here's my BIG QUESTION: if he's elected, what kind of jurors will McCorpse appoint to the nation's highest court? Men or women who are conservatives? More conservative than he is???

Michelle Malkin's wondering the same thing at her site while Ed Morrissey explores the decision at Hot Air.

*****