JCG and WLS on Gitmo Arguments
Last night, I noted that I was awaiting Jan Crawford Greenburg’s analysis of yesterday’s Gitmo argument. She has now posted it, here. If Jan is right, I was wrong to be utterly confident of a liberal victory:
[L]ast spring, after the Court first decided it was premature to take up the detainees’ case, Kennedy later took the highly unusual step of switching his vote to jump into it (as did Stevens). So most people, including me, thought he was a sure bet to again abandon fellow conservatives in this highly significant case.
But after hearing yesterday’s arguments—and Kennedy’s questions–I’m much less confident of his leftward course. And when you factor in the emerging dynamics of the new Roberts Court, it seems even less certain.
Read it all. Then, if you haven’t already, read WLS’s analysis below, which elegantly explains why Jan and I should have seen this coming. It’s one of the best posts WLS has done here.
I’m still plowing through the oral arguments, and want to read the briefs and re-read the cases before I express any further opinions. But these two posts give interested readers a good jumping-off point.
In my next post, I will do something I rarely do, and just give you my gut reaction without resorting to intricate legal analysis.
JCG’s comment on Souter’s emotion is quite graphic (“Souter was visibly quaking in rage at the thought of the detainees being held nearly six years without court review.”) but her take on Alito is the most interesting part. Can you imagine how different things might be if it had been Miers instead of Alito?
DRJ (a6fcd2) — 12/6/2007 @ 9:16 pmSouter is President Bush 41’s legacy. Ouch.
JD (2c9284) — 12/6/2007 @ 9:23 pmWell, my question for JCG is — how long did you take to write your post and get all your acronyms correct? I did mine in about 45 minutes — typos, bad grammar and syntax included.
wls (6c5569) — 12/6/2007 @ 10:14 pmAnd then I spent about 5-10 minutes fixing the spelling and grammatical errors.
Or some of them, anyway.
Patterico (faeccf) — 12/6/2007 @ 10:33 pmAnd you have my sincere and earnest thanks for doing so. Sometimes I take the time to proof-read. But not always. Well, not usually.
Almost never. Unless its REALLY embarrassing.
wls (6c5569) — 12/6/2007 @ 10:55 pmIts hard to imagine a legal mind less suitable for the Supreme Court than Souter. I wonder why he believes precedent is irrelevant in this case and where in the Constitution he finds grounds for his beliefs.
Ah this country needs more lawyers who believe in a living constitution. I for one believe that I have a right to free room and board, monthly vacations to any destination in the world and a new car each year at government expense because of the government’s resposibility to see to “the general welfare.” Apparently Souter draws the same inspiration as I do.
Thomas Jackson (bf83e0) — 12/7/2007 @ 10:49 am