It will be a great day in America when the thugs at CAIR are fitted for their orange jumpsuits

Of course they are, FU**ERS!

Have they properly defined "cruel, unusual punishment" yet though?

Of course they are. They know where their bread is buttered...

Five judges in favor, one for each column.

I think I'm living in an alternate universe.

Great.... Way to go Supreme Court justice five......
/

re: #6 ggt

I think I'm living in an alternate universe.

I kind of wish I was.

Didn't Jefferson say something about living under tyranny of courts?

Naturally they're happy. They won, didn't they?

I wonder if CAIR &hearts the depiction of a sword wielding Mohammad in the Supreme Court building?

re: #1 Shug

It will be a great day in America when the thugs at CAIR are fitted for their orange jumpsuitswhen we have Judges that actually can read The Constitution rather than making law up to fit their bizarre agendas.

re: #1 Shug

It will be a great day in America when the thugs at CAIR are fitted for their orange jumpsuits

Deported or better yet
Made to renounce Islam

It's ironic cair would applaud the Court granting Constitutional rights, since that's what islamists seek to take away.

The Saudi-funded, Hamas-linked radical Islamic front group calling itself the Council on American Islamic Relations is applauding the Supreme Court decision to grant Al Qaeda terrorists Constitutional protections.

Great sign! Way to Supreme Court!

/sarc

re: #11 EC Marm

Considering that depicting actual figures in Islamic art is severely haram, I don't think so.

And the hits just keep on coming

An Obama court appointee will already be wearing a black robe.

and he will have a beard and a funny hat.

re: #18 Shug

An Obama court appointee will already be wearing a black robe.

and he will have a beard and a funny hat.

Hasidic?

re: #14 Sharmuta

It's ironic cair would applaud the Court granting Constitutional rights, since that's what islamists seek to take away.

As long as it benefits the Jihad, it is acceptable.

I'm wondering how many CAIR lawyers Barry plans to nominate as a Supreme Court Justice?

Of course they are because they have proven time and time again that they sympathize with and aid and abet the enemy of this country...

The Democrats are a pretty happy bunch too. Funny how they agree with CAIR, isn't it?

"SEN. PATRICK LEAHY, (D) VERMONT: Today's Supreme Court decision is a stinging rebuke of the Bush administration's flawed detention policies."

[Link: www.foxnews.com...]

I guess the Zionists don't control everything.

Hardly a surprise that CAIR would oppose any measure making it more difficult for the USA to prosecute a War on Islamic terrorism.

I think it still remains to be seen what this SCOTUS opinion means in terms of real world impact on war detainees. Giving them another day in court likely won't change anything.

re: #20 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

As long as it benefits the Jihad, it is acceptable.

I'm wondering how many CAIR lawyers Barry plans to nominate as a Supreme Court Justice?

All of them
The ones tere now will be hanged

I still say if Justice Ginsburg wants to cite International law when interpreting OUR consistution, she ought to go ahead and at least READ the Geneva Conventions.
I think we ought to apply the Geneva Conventions to these combatants caught on the field of battle, not wearing a uniform and do what the GC says we can.

Remember that your vote on election day will affect who gets to nominate the next couple of justices to the Supreme Court.

I have not read one MSM report that doesn't say something along the lines of" big rebuke of Bush" by SCOTUS.None have reported that it has been the law by SCOTUS since 1950 that foreign fighters have no habeas rights,this case overturns that one of 1950.

re: #27 Kosh's Shadow

Remember that your vote on election day will affect who gets to nominate the next couple of justices to the Supreme Court.

ABSOLUTELY. This cannot be repeated enough.

re: #22 MJ

The Democrats are a pretty happy bunch too. Funny how they agree with CAIR, isn't it?

"SEN. PATRICK LEAHY, (D) VERMONT: Today's Supreme Court decision is a stinging rebuke of the Bush administration's flawed detention policies."

[Link:

Hey, Barak Obama applauded the decision too. What a strange coincidence, huh?

More Democratic joy and argeement with CAIR:

(The Politico) Congressional Democrats seized on a Supreme Court ruling Thursday morning that gives suspected terrorists held by the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay the right to challenge their detention in federal court, thus injecting new life into the long-running debate over the controversial detention facility.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) praised the Court for “uphold[ing] the constitution of the United States” and reiterated her desire to see Gitmo shut down.

Other Democrats quickly followed suit after the court ruled 5-4 that the U.S. military lacks the legal authority to prosecute as many as 300 prisoners. The detainees sued the government to contest their imprisonment and the current rules used to try them in military tribunals.

“Today’s Supreme Court decision in Boumediene v. Bush is a stinging rebuke of the Bush administration’s flawed detention policies," said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), "and a vindication for those who have also argued from the beginning that it was unwise as well as unconstitutional.”

The issue has often spilled over from the courts into the legislative branch. In 2006, Congress passed a law limiting the court jurisdiction to hear similar types of challenges.

“Time after time," says Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), "the Supreme Court has rebuffed the administration’s attempts to undermine the Constitution."

"It is a testament to our system of government that the Court has rejected the habeas-stripping provisions of the Military Commissions Act and reaffirmed that the government does not have the power to detain people indefinitely and arbitrarily without judicial review.”

As of noon Thursday, the White House had yet to release a statement on the ruling.

[Link: www.cbsnews.com...]

re: #28 beens21 Gee, I wonder what the party affiliation was of the President in 1950?!?

Have a great day all!

gotta go

re: #26 realwest

I still say if Justice Ginsburg wants to cite International law when interpreting OUR consistution, she ought to go ahead and at least READ the Geneva Conventions.
I think we ought to apply the Geneva Conventions to these combatants caught on the field of battle, not wearing a uniform and do what the GC says we can.

Existing precedent already existed in the matter. Enemy combatants do not have the rights under the Constitution. FDR established that during WWII. I guess that some of the Justices dont worry about things like history or precedent.

Obama and CAIR both share the same opinion:

McCain and Obama Split on Justices’ Guantánamo Ruling

By KATE ZERNIKE
Published: June 13, 2008
BOSTON — The presidential candidates took differing positions Thursday on the Supreme Court decision granting foreign terrorism suspects at Guantánamo Bay a right to challenge their detention in civilian courts. Senator John McCain expressed concern about the ruling, while Senator Barack Obama lauded it.

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

Yes, by all means let us extend to terrorists the very rights they wish to destroy. Party line votes from the Supremes? Color me unsurprised.

Conversely, the same liberals who want to give each and every terrorist several benefits of the doubt are simultaneously demanding that the President be impeached for a perceived crime.

This all makes my head hurt. It’s only 9:30 in the morning and I’m ready for a big fat drink.

Give the terrorists what they want. They'll take the rest.

Don't these judges take an oath to uphold the constitution? Can we impeach on these grounds? Something has to change before we get too far off the cliff.

re: #17 Nevergiveup

And the hits just keep on coming

And the shit just keep on coming

OT -

"Western policies have led the Christians in the Middle East towards extinction. Western policies have not left a single Christian in Palestine and the holy places. Western policies have not left a single Christian in Iraq. They intended to get rid of us by marginalizing us, and by treating us as a superfluous element in society." -- Michael Aoun, Lebanese MP General on why he is allying with Hizbullah, Iran, and Syria.

That makes sense. Once his "allies" are finished with Israel, he will bowing to Mecca too.

They complained about that a few years ago... The Supreme Court claimed that it is actually flaterring to Mohammed, as the sword is a univeral symbol of "justice"; which is an important concept in Islam.

re: #11 EC Marm

I wonder if CAIR &hearts the depiction of a

Monday, January 28, 2008
HABEAS LAWYERS FOR OBAMA

HABEAS LAWYERS SUPPORT OBAMA

January 28, 2008

Dear Friends:

We are at a critical point in the Presidential campaign, and as lawyers who have been deeply involved in the Guantanamo litigation to preserve the important right to habeas corpus, we are writing to urge you to support Senator Obama.

The Administration's Guantanamo policies have undercut our values at home and stained our reputation around the world. All of us are lawyers who have worked on the Guantanamo habeas corpus litigation for many years, some of us since early 2002, and we were all deeply involved in opposing the Administration’s attempt to overturn the Supreme Court's Rasul decision by stripping the courts of jurisdiction to hear the Guantanamo cases. We have talked with Senator Obama about why the Guantanamo litigation is so significant, and we have worked closely with Senator Obama in the fight to preserve habeas corpus.

Some politicians are all talk and no action. But we know from first-hand experience that Senator Obama has demonstrated extraordinary leadership on this critical and controversial issue. When others stood back, Senator Obama helped lead the fight in the Senate against the Administration's efforts in the Fall of 2006 to strip the courts of jurisdiction, and when we were walking the halls of the Capitol trying to win over enough Senators to beat back the Administration's bill, Senator Obama made his key staffers and even his offices available to help us. Senator Obama worked with us to count the votes, and he personally lobbied colleagues who worried about the political ramifications of voting to preserve habeas corpus for the men held at Guantanamo. He has understood that our strength as a nation stems from our commitment to our core values, and that we are strong enough to protect both our security and those values. Senator Obama demonstrated real leadership then and since, continuing to raise Guantanamo and habeas corpus in his speeches and in the debates.

Well. Maybe it's not such a coincidence after all.

re: #35 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir) I agree, but those POS "Justices" could always say that that was a war declared to be such by the entire Congress of the US, that's not the case here and they'd be right about that.
But what about the Geneva Conventions? Hmmmm?
And I'd still like them to answer #28 by beens21
and my question about it at #33!

re: #36 MJ

Obama and CAIR both share the same opinion:

McCain and Obama Split on Justices’ Guantánamo Ruling

By KATE ZERNIKE
Published: June 13, 2008
BOSTON — The presidential candidates took differing positions Thursday on the Supreme Court decision granting foreign terrorism suspects at Guantánamo Bay a right to challenge their detention in civilian courts. Senator John McCain expressed concern about the ruling, while Senator Barack Obama lauded it.

[Link:

re: #9 Carolyn

Didn't Jefferson say something about living under tyranny of courts?

Ayn Rand created the Ragnar Danneskjold character to be sure there was justice.

The Courts. This is the area that an Obama presidency can do the most lasting damage to America. Something to remember. Most everything else can be reversed through legislation, and a few tanker trucks blood, but the Justices are for life, and some of those bastards live an awfully long time, and their decisions live even longer.

re: #14 Sharmuta

It's ironic cair would applaud the Court granting Constitutional rights, since that's what islamists seek to take away.

using our system like parasites until they can emerge w/ their own full blown diseased sharia law.

I sent this e-mail to family & friends yesterday:

I bet you thought, being an American citizen, you were something special. Or at least, that you had more legal rights and protections than anyone else in the world who isn't an American citizen.

You probably thought the Constitution was a real swell document that only applies to Americans. To America's friends you said, "Get your own Constitution," and to America's enemies you said...well, hopefully something unprintable.

Well, you're wrong.

Apparently, there is a back door method to become an American citizen and having all the Constitutional rights accorded to American citizens accused under the laws of the United States.

It's not to be such a good friend of the United States that you're given honorary citizenship, like, say, Winston Churchill.

No, all you have to do is hate Americans and dedicate your life to killing them...soldier, civilian, man, woman, old, young, it doesn't matter. Then, go get yourself captured while attempting to murder Americans, and get sent to Guantanamo Bay.

The Supreme Court has ruled by a 5-4 vote that illegal combatants captured on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, or while attempting to commit acts of of terror and murder on American soil, are entitled to a full hearing in Federal court.

Wow.

Imagine.

What if this was retroactive? We captured thousands upon thousands of LEGAL combatants during World War II, after all. Guys who wore uniforms and for the most part fought according to international rules of conflict. All we ever gave them was their rights under the Geneva Conventions. Maybe those former German, Italian, and Japanese POWs that are still alive should sue. They were denied their rights under the U.S. Constitution!

I wonder what all the Jihadis are thinking right now. Probably, "Go ahead and let them catch me, I'll get a lawyer and tie up their courts for years on the American taxpayer's dime, while getting lots of press coverage of my crazy rantings, er, testimony for Allah."

My suggestion to our military? TAKE NO PRISONERS.

re: #43 funky chicken

Thanks again Obama. Fighting for terrorist rights and planning to prosecute our own guys. We got a real winner here.

All this crap that's surfaced on this guy in the last few months would have gotten any other politician beaten down to dog catcher. The fact that none of it is shown on the "news" is very disturbing.

It seems that Justice Scalia was right: we have lived to regret this Supreme Court decision, and it took only 24 hours.

I'm guessing that this decision is a gift that will keep on giving.

This is probably the single biggest reason to get John McCain elected.

Ehhh Mclame supports the no drill in Anwar and closing Gitmo- so I'm worried about his Supreme Court nominations- besides - even if good- they won't survive the gauntlet of the demorat controlled Congress.
So the 5 Supremes ignored precedent- I thought they loved precedents? Mark Levin was very eloquent on the subject last night- his book- Men in Black- had a chapter on this very problem. Prescient. Vote Conservative or suffer the consequences.

Thank you President Anthony M. Kennedy

Vice President Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Secretary of State John Paul Stevens

Secretary of Homeland Security Stephen G. Breyer

and Secretary of Defense David Hackett Souter.

Who elected these executives?

For the life of me I just cannot figure out why the court would do this. They should be thinking about what is best for the USA, not what will make it nicer for the terrorists.

All this decision will do is cost US taxpayers more money paying travel and legal costs for these prisoners. Not to mention all of the money spent on making sure they only eat the right kind of food!

So has MCCain come out strongly against this? I hope he does, but I don't see it happening.

re: #9 Carolyn

Didn't Jefferson say something about living under tyranny of courts?

Well Carolyn, for starters there is this:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

I hope you are one of those rare 2nd Amendment Sisters?
Lock and Load baby!

re: #56 greygandalf

So has MCCain come out strongly against this? I hope he does, but I don't see it happening.

Today Comrade McCainski is still busy coming out against companies and individuals making obscene profits, and railing against Big Oil.

Rush almost cussed on air, he was so pissed, he was actually seething, after playing a clip of Comrade McCainski trying to out Liberal Obama's Marxism this AM.

The Dhimmes own the majority in both houses! Dhimes' court Judges control the courts! Dhimes' control the federal bureaucracy (health, education, welfare, entitlements of all kinds) Dhimmes have some control of the country's media outlets! Dhimmes will retain control, if not a supermajority, in the House and Senate!It will be very close as to whether they also have the Presidency! But, even if they can't win the Presidency they will effectively control his administration!
The best to be hoped for is that McCain can win and somehow get moderate, but, sorrowfully, still progressive, appointments to various court seats!
the stroll toward a socialist democratic state is in danger of breaking into a trot!

re: #58 Dotcoman

Today Comrade McCainski is still busy coming out against companies and individuals making obscene profits, and railing against Big Oil.

Rush almost cussed on air, he was so pissed, he was actually seething, after playing a clip of Comrade McCainski trying to out Liberal Obama's Marxism this AM.

I wish I could feign surprise. But I can't.

QUESTION

Since these constitutional rights have been given to foreign nationals being held on foreign soil, does this mean that any foreign national can claim US constitutional rights or do they have to be fucked-up. death cult murderers to qualify?

I am stunned that a legal body such as our Supreme Court could possibly entertain the notion that someone other than a US Citizen would have any rights in our own country. Now, how do we begin impeachment proceedings against the CAIR Five?

Which supreme court judges voted for this?
Their names should go down in history for this sedition.

It is amazing that people continue to VOTE for these Senators who support this crap. I guess that when they are blinded by their hatred of the United States it doesn't matter. If only the MSM would report the news, not DNC approved content.

Winning their hearts and minds. How splendid and inclusive - Change We Can Believe In.

/sarcasm off

re: #46 debutaunt

Ayn Rand created the Ragnar Danneskjold character to be sure there was justice.

Hi there! :)

I just came to check to see what people thought of my blog entry (posted in spinoff links) and saw two minuses. I guess the libertarians (and Ron Paul fans) don't like the truth on this one!