The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Friday, June 30, 2006

SCOTUS ruling a defeat for Dems - not Bush

The Dems and the media are giving high fives to each other over the recent ruling by the Supreme Court. The name of the court case is "Hamdan vs. Rumsefeld". So the Dems and the media see an Al Quaeda terrorist against Don Rumsfeld and celebrate when the terrorist wins. The focus seems to be on the Bush Administration suffering a defeat; rather than what is good for the country. Here are a few quotes assembled from the media (Hat Tip:Rush Limbaugh):

JEFFREY TOOBIN: This is a major defeat for the Bush administration.

JULIET KAYEM: This is another defeat for the Bush administration before the Supreme Court.

JONATHAN TURLEY: The court has delivered another defeat to the president. It's a very, very big defeat for the Bush administration.

The Dems are spinning a loss for the American people as a win. Here is the reaction from Nancy Pelosi:
“Today’s Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system. This is a triumph for the rule of law.

“The rights of due process are among our most cherished liberties, and today’s decision is a rebuke of the Bush Administration’s detainee policies and a reminder of our responsibility to protect both the American people and our Constitutional rights. We cannot allow the values on which our country was founded to become a casualty in the war on terrorism."
So basically Pelosi in her statement makes these terrorists and American citizens equals. She also lumps in the "detainee policies" of the administration. This case had nothing to do with the detainee policies. It had to do with tribunals vs. US courts. Yet Pelosi as all liberals do, must blow smoke to cloud the issues. The libs completely overlook that in any other war when prisoners are captured they are detained until cessation of hostilities. Somehow these are to be treated differently and released?

In spite of the celebration, I think the Dems are going to take a political hit on this one. This will be especially true if Congress intervenes to authorize this. That is after all what Justice Stevens wrote in the majority opinion: that Bush had set these up without Congressional approval. A debate of the this issue will clearly show the Dems on the side of the terrorists and the GOP on the side of the American people. The notion of Bush overstepping his bounds to set up these military tribunals is quite a stretch. Bush has strong historical company as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and FDR used military tribunals. There was even an international military tribunal following WWII. Are Kennedy, Pelosi and others really willing to drag these names through the mud simply to stick it to Bush and celebrate enemy combatants having access to the ACLU in their trials? After all, that is what we will see. Once these creeps get access to the US courts, the ACLU will be all over it to help them any way they can.

So we can see right away the need for more originalists on the Supreme Court, and the Dems siding with the terrorists against the American people simply to stick it to Bush. We see future fruit to be reaped if the GOP in congress moves to debate and pass authorization to move ahead with the military tribunals. This will satisfy the Supreme Court (even though they were wrong). What will be especially delicious is if a bunch of Dems see which side they will be seen on if they vote against it and get onboard. That will make all of the blowhard statements today look quite silly. So whether they vote for or against, they will come off looking bad.

The SCOTUS ruling may have been a delay or setback, but it was certainly no defeat for the Bush Administration. It was a setup for defeat for the Dems...again.


  • At 12:00 PM, Blogger SkyePuppy said…

    Lindsey Graham, I believe, announced right after the SCOTUS Hamdan decision that he and Senator Kyl intend to introduce a bill that will address and clear up this issue. While I often have issues with Graham, on this one he's right on the money.

    Great post.

  • At 12:49 PM, Blogger Joe Smoe: American Citizen said…

    I have no problem with the anti terror stuff that Bush is doing for the most part the problem I have is with his belief that he is above the Constitution and the rule of law.

    He especially Cheney has attempted to grab more power for the executive branch at the expense of CHECKS AND BALANCES that are inherent within the US government.

    Example: Bush has skated following laws that he doesn't like by adding an ADDENDUM which he has done 750 times, thus saying to congress say and do what you want,but I WILL DO WHAT I WANT WITHOUT YOUR OKAY.

    It's high time that someone or something stepped in and put a stop to this IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY.

    As far as paying the price for this I don't think so as the Average Joe Stiffly American has had it with this FRIGHTWING TERROR Rap. Bush can talk all he wants about protecting America, but the Average American is starting to see that he will say anything as he and the GOP sell off the country, Iraq descends into Civil War, and the Ports and the E-voting Machines are bought up by foreign governments.


  • At 2:38 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…


    The thing I find unusual about your comments is your focus on the executive power grabs. You seem to completely overlook the historical power grabs by the legislative and judicial branches going on now for decades. The judicial branch has completely and continuously overstepped its bounds. The liberal camp has no problem with them doing this because every time this happens they rule in favor of the liberal cause.

    The legislature also constantly attempt to grab power from the executive branch.

    Somehow you seem to have taken 3 separate but equal powers and made a power hierarchy with the executive branch as last. Most libs would put the judicial first. I simply cannot follow why they want it that way other than they just want their way and the constitution can go jump.

  • At 10:21 PM, Blogger FKAB said…

    I cannot believe that a freedom loving American who strives to fight for justice in the world could possibly support a President who thinks it's OK to set up prison camps where the detainees are denied their due process. It angers me that redneck idiots in America think that the Islamic world is the greatest threat to freedom in the (supposedly) civilised west. If you, and all the other Bush-supporters, want to find the real threats to democracy, you need look no further than Washington.

  • At 10:22 PM, Blogger FKAB said…

    Sorry if I sounded a bit irate.

  • At 10:36 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…


    Please forward me information on the due process practices during WWII or Vietnam (from either side). Maybe i am missing something, but it is historical practice that those captured in battle are held to the end of hostilities. Where are we deviating from that?

  • At 11:48 PM, Blogger FKAB said…

    All prisoners of war have a right to due process. A delay in justice is a denial of justice, in my opinion. It does not matter that this is the way wars have been fought in the past.

  • At 10:21 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Really amazing! Useful information. All the best.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home