Supreme Deniers

The justices of the United States Supreme Court this week became the world’s most august global warming sceptics. … Global warming is by no means a settled issue, they made clear, suggesting it would be foolhardy to assume it was.

A 5-4 split? What did the Liberals say in dissent? You’ll have to RTWT.

Re-elect Cliff Taylor

Posting is going to be light this week, my son is getting married on the weekend and I’ve a got a long to-do list.

Nevertheless, you should read about a lying attempt to defeat Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Cliff Taylor, and note that the players tried something similar when Barack Obama was on the Board of the Joyce Foundation. It further demonstrates Obama wants to confiscate guns.

Lawlessness in DC follows Supreme Court gun decision

The crimes are being committed by the DC government.

D.C.’s Bad Joke: New Gun Law

DC Rejects [Dick Heller’s] Handgun Application

Dick Heller is the man who brought the lawsuit against the District’s 32-year-old ban on handguns. He was among the first in line Thursday morning to apply for a handgun permit.

But when he tried to register his semi-automatic weapon, he says he was rejected. He says his gun has seven bullet clip. Heller says the City Council legislation allows weapons with fewer than eleven bullets in the clip. A spokesman for the DC Police says the gun was a bottom-loading weapon, and according to their interpretation, all bottom-loading guns are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns.

Besides obtaining paperwork to buy new handguns, residents also can register firearms they’ve had illegally under a 180-day amnesty period.

Though residents will be allowed to begin applying for handgun permits, city officials have said the entire process could take weeks or months.

Heller’s Future in the Lower Courts

H/T Instapundit

The Supremes sing "Freedom’s just another word for someone else to loose"

Kenneth Anderson, law professor at the Washington College of Law, American University, is also a member of the Hoover Institution Task Force on National Security and Law. He writes about the Boumediene decision here:

Supreme Court Flexes Its Muscles in Boumediene Decision. Read the whole thing.

…Habeas at Guantanamo affirmed in principle. But developing actual standards for individual cases — what the specific rights of detainees are and how they should be weighed against real-world security concerns — was handed off to the myriad federal district courts. The Court offered no glimmer of what it thought actual, workable principles should be. It is evident that Justice Kennedy has no idea; he simply believes that district courts will be better and, perhaps, have greater legitimacy at it – particularly in the world of global judicial elites in Europe in which Justice Kennedy basks – than the American people’s elected representatives.

On June 12th, I called this SCOTUS Europhilia an example of “…the insidious weakness of Western Civilization’s leftist guilt-quest for cultural self-esteem,” contending (in the comments) that, “the motivation arises from cultural guilt parallel to the Shelby Steele model: It has far more to do with the moral redemption of the 5 Justices than with the law…” The long link above is from Professor Anderson’s original article and it links to an article in The New Yorker magazine subtitled, How Anthony Kennedy’s passion for foreign law could change the Supreme Court. It was written in 2005. It didn’t take very long to come to pass. For anyone who’s been hanging out with Ted Kaczynski for the last 40 years, I’ll mention that The New Yorker is a “progressive” magazine. They approve of Kennedy’s sycophancy.

Here’s more from Professor Anderson:

…Prior to Boumediene, I would have said that the Court’s main concern has been that the war on terror is not “war” in the traditional sense, operationally or legally, and that just because the political branches call something war does not mean it actually is war, at least not if a consequence is the executive’s ability to detain anyone — which is where the administration started out, back with Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen — as any enemy combatant solely on its say-so. If habeas did not apply to that claim of executive power, what was it good for? It is a fair question, but one that, as the chief justice noted in his dissent, is covered not just for citizens but even for aliens, by the MCA and DTA. Why the need to go beyond those? After Boumediene, it would seem to matter only if you see this as part of a larger project to carry the Constitution abroad, insofar as American agents and military act beyond U.S. borders, and to transform warfare into a species of large-scale law enforcement. If you are required to collect and preserve evidence in order to be able to hold alien security detainees picked up in foreign war zones, after all, war has become a very different activity.

Emphasis mine, because I agree with it. As I pointed out to an anonymous Ontarian in comments to that June 12th post, “You consider that laws of the United States ought to apply to foreign nationals on foreign soil. I can’t help but remember chief CHRC [Ironically, that’s the Canadian Human Rights Commission.] investigator Dean Steacy’s comment that, “Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value.””

We can’t even export the responsibilities of American law to Canada in defense of its own Charter of Rights, but “enlightened” Canadians think we should be Mirandizing Osama bin Laden (as do Barack Obama’s advisors), Disagree and it means you’d like to see the Constitution “ripped up”. Thanks, but Anthony Kennedy is already on that job.

…Justice Kennedy is a human rights universalist — habeas corpus for aliens as for citizens, contrary precedents like Eisentrager be damned. And yet Afghan and Iraqi lives apparently are at a steep discount in the Boumediene majority’s weird, morally preening settling of accounts between liberties and security; so too, eventually, are American lives.

The obvious problem with exporting American Constitutional rights to foreign nationals is that we have no way to require any of the cultural behavior expected to be associated with having those rights. I wasn’t joking about Mirandizing terrorists, it is a straight line to that from believing habeas rights are due to POWs or enemy combatants on foreign soil. The only appreciation shown by those who respect neither habeas nor free speech is likely to be glee in killing more people who disagree with them.

I understand the objection: “You can’t just lock people up forever without lawyers because George Bush says so!” And I agree, but this is not at issue. How did this case come before the Supreme Court if Lakhdar Boumediene was denied a lawyer? Answer: He wasn’t. Access to lawyers, and to the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia, was part of the procedure to which Congress and the President jointly agreed, at SCOTUS’ direction. SCOTUS then found these protections inadequate on grounds it needn’t even have considered in this case. It was, indeed, a sad day.

See also, for more links to commentary on this decision.

Clear and present. Ignored.

Here’s a prophecy I made yesterday that I’d rather have seen unfulfilled. However, if Obama’s people are saying it, who among Boumediene‘s apologists will disagree? Anybody? Anybody…?

Obama advisers say bin Laden can appeal to U.S. courts

Barack Obama’s foreign policy advisers said Tuesday that Osama bin Laden, if captured, should be allowed to appeal his case to U.S. civilian courts, a privilege opposed by John McCain.

Responding to questions from The Examiner, Sen. John Kerry and former White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke said bin Laden would benefit from last week’s Supreme Court decision giving terrorism suspects habeas corpus, the right to appeal their military detention to civilian courts.

“If he were to be brought back,” Clarke said of bin Laden, “the Supreme Court ruling holds on the right of habeas corpus.”

… On Monday, Obama applauded the civilian prosecution of terrorists prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001.

“In previous terrorist attacks — for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center — we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial,” he told ABC. “They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.”

This is really taking the idea of the United States as the world’s policeman to the next level, but we have to remember that foreign nationals who brag about committing mass murder are people too. Probably Osama’s how he is because of unresolved misogynist trauma as a child.

Well then, Obama, we’ll just wait for the third round of WTC bombers to be arrested – then they’ll be “incapacitated.” Oh wait, there’s no point.