Olbermann & Turley on Thursday's Supreme Court Smackdown

It was a very, very close call, but the rule of law ruled the day: a provision of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that stripped Federal courts of their jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions from detainees who've been imprisoned in Guantanamo for as long as six years was, according to the Supreme Court, unconstitutional.  Meaning, prisoners who have until now been held without charge, denied counsel--indeed, denied due process--can challenge their detention in America's courts. Keith Olbermann discusses the landmark ruling; Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley (my hero) weighs in.

The money quote (well, one of them):

Turley: "I think what we really gained here is credibility--that is, we show the world that having an idiot-proof system doesn't mean you don't have idiots; it means you can transcend them."

(I'll add the full transcript as soon as it's available later this afternoon. Transcript of the Turley segment appears after the jump.)

OLBERMANN:  The Supreme Court has twice before ruled against the Bush administration on this seminal issue but never as panoramically as in its decision today.

And our fourth story on the COUNTDOWN: Detainees at Guantanamo Bay, non-U.S. citizens, do have the right under the U.S. Constitution to challenge their detentions in civilian U.S. courts.  This, according to the nation‘s highest court.

In a moment, Jonathan Turley assesses just how critical this ruling really is.

The Supreme Court by five to four today, is saying that the Bush administration is violating the rights of 270 prisoner at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, who are being held indefinitely and without charges.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, rejected the notion that the threat of terrorism trumps the rule of law.  Quoting: “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.”

Further more, the court deemed unconstitutional, a 2006 law passed by the then Republican Congress, which had stripped Gitmo prisoners of the right to habeas corpus.  The majority also rejected the government position that a limited judicial review set up by Congress was adequate to protect detainee rights.

President Bush speaking from Italy today, said that he would abide by the court‘s decision but he did not stop there.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: That doesn‘t mean I have to agree with it.  It‘s a deeply divided court and I strongly agree with those who dissent it, that and their dissent was based upon their serious concerns about U.S. national security. And we‘ll study this opinion and we‘ll do so with this in mind to determine whether or not additional legislation might be appropriate.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: The Justice Department is now responded in a statement that reads in part, quote, “While we disagree with the ruling, it is important to note that that case did not concern military commission trial. Military commission trials will therefore continue to go forward.”

As promised, let‘s call in George Washington University law professor and constitutional law expert, Jonathan Turley.

Jon, good evening.

JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY:  Hi, Keith.

OLBERMANN:  All right.  How far-reaching is this decision and does it, in fact, fully restore habeas corpus?

TURLEY: Well, when we say far-reaching, this is sort of like beating a diagnosis of terminal cancer.  You don‘t gain much but you didn‘t lose what you had.  And what we almost lost here, by a hair‘s breath of one vote, was the great writ of habeas corpus—at least for these detainees.

And I think what we really gained here is credibility.  That is, we show the world that having an idiot-proof system doesn‘t mean you don‘t have idiots.  It means you can transcend them.  It means that you have a legal system that can be better than its leaders.  But, we came awfully close.

Now, by restoring this right, it means these people will be able to go into a real court and face real judges and have real law applied.  But the details have to be worked out and this is going to take years.  And obviously, this is a president who is not going to go quietly into this night.

OLBERMANN: To read the dissent, however, you would have thought that all 270 of the detainees in Guantanamo were freed by this verdict.  But this was - I don‘t know, (INAUDIBLE) or something, what actually is—what actually is their status, where are military commissions which justice says is going to continue?

TURLEY: Well, I have to tell you, I‘m surprised by Scalia‘s dissent and Roberts wrote it.  But Scalia‘s dissent when contrasted with the eloquence of Justice Kennedy—he wrote 70 pages, it was tour de force, a great read—and when compared to that, Scalia‘s opinion comes off as sort of a snarling, you know, tirade.  It‘s pretty obnoxious.  He suggests that, you know, it‘s almost as if the World Trade Centers would still be standing if it wasn‘t for habeas corpus.

Well, of course, habeas corpus existed then and the president tried to roll back now.  But that‘s not the reason those attacks occurred.  But the suggestion that people will die because we‘re giving legal process to those who‘ve accused is a really bizarre and obnoxious thought.  But, I think, ultimately, history will judge poorly that opinion of Justice Scalia.  He has some very good opinions, that‘s just doesn‘t have to be one of them.

OLBERMANN: The president says that he may once again have Congress address this, I imagine with less success than he did in 2006.  But, did Congress not sort of get slapped down today for not adhering to a previous decision?

TURLEY: Yes, that‘s what‘s often missed in news coverage.  This is not just a condemnation of the president, it‘s a condemnation of Congress.  I was absolutely shocked when Congress stepped in and tried to assist the president after the last round by wiping out habeas corpus—Democrats and Republicans.

And what we really need at this point is Hippocratic oath in Congress not to do any harm to the Constitution.  They should just leave it alone.

If we really are fighting for something, if they believe in our system of government, why not allow the courts to do what courts do?  To judge guilt and do it in a way that we show who we are, not who these detainees are, but to show that even when we hate people or fear people, it doesn‘t change who we are or how we try them.

And to that point, that which terrified all of us, you and me particularly, sitting here in late 2006, the government is going around, under, over, through the Constitution.  After today, how much of it is still in play?

TURLEY: Well, I‘m afraid that there‘s a great deal of circumvention still going on.  We have the unlawful surveillance program, the torture program, the abuse of state secrets, and also Congress has radically cut back the ability of courts to do what courts do—to look at the constitutionality of what this administration has done and continues to do.

So, there‘s a great amount of work but what we have today is that we had an example that, you know, we have a beautiful, brilliant system that has fail-safe mechanisms.  In this case, we came down to the very last one.  We had a failure in the executive branch, a failure in the legislative branch, and with the failure of the judicial branch, it was only saved in the end by five justices.

Now, that‘s a real Burma Shave when it comes to a constitutional crisis but it worked.  But we need to look at these other areas and try to regain what we have lost.

OLBERMANN:  As Wellington said it was “a near run thing.”

Jonathan Turley of George Washington University—thank you, Jon.

TURLEY:  Thanks, Keith.

Also at litbrit.

Comments

[fumphis]

Habeas has an A! Habeas, I tell you! I've seen this stupid typo about twelve times today. It's a subjunctive, for chrissakes.

[litbrit]

It's fixed, fumphis, calm down! Perhaps some vodka-infused watermelon would help? You're almost as bad as I am when it comes to English grammar. (Seriously, thanks for the heads-up, though. I'm a lightening lightning-fast typist but I'm no Latin expert--not by a long shot. That's Lisa's thing.)

[fumphis]

No vodka! No watermelons! No infusions! This will not do! [Pant]

(And it's lightning)

[litbrit]

No infusions! This will not do!

Infusions of one sort or another are necessary evils on this Friday and in this heat, I'm afraid. They help one tune out boring chores and loud noises, too, which benefit, in my opinion, is well worth any loss of typing accuracy and attendant disinclination to at least minimally proofread one's writing.

(My earlier typo is fixed. I corrected my earlier typo.)

[Scott K]

Allow me to channel Mark Twain here:

I feel bad for the man that can't spell a word more than one way.

If that isn't a qualified enough source, how about Andrew Jackson?

It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word.

[Sir Charles]

Jackson then proceeded to shoot the man who called him on his spelling error.