The Last Refuge of Scumbags

I love reading controversial opinions. They simultaneously describe things I never knew existed (and perhaps still don't exist) as well as the tendency of otherwise intelligent people to be absolutely full of themselves. This is especially true among lawyers and judges, who either are attempting to convict those who have done nothing wrong or exonerate those who have committed egregious crimes--which leads me to the recently decided court case, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (No. 05-184).

Upon reading the Decision of the Court, written by John Stevens, and subsequent dissenting opinions by Anthony Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, I learned that Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act in 2005, which limited the courts' jurisdiction by forbidding them from hearing habeas courpus requests.

Congress is afforded this authority to limit the court's jurisdiction by Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which states that:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

What I find remarkable isn't the merit of the argument that these foreign detainees ought to have access to our court system or that the military tribunals held to try them are or aren't lawful. That is a subject for a different column. No, what is remarkable is the court's argument that the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 doesn't apply in this case because, essentially, Congress didn't say "Simon Says."

And this sums up the complicity of all three branches of government have in the destruction of the plain meaning of the Constitution. In a sane world, the executive would ignore such a ruling, and Congress would refuse to fund--and in fact would actively defund--any attempt by the courts to try such cases that Congress has declared the courts ineligible to try.

Going one step forward, courageous members of Congress would also seek to remove guilty justices from the office that they are only entitled to during periods of "good behavior." Flagrantly violating the Constitution certainly qualifies as "bad behavior" in my book.

What about yours?