Supreme Court Should Interpret Laws not Make Them

Fire of Liberty

Here's an editorial in the D.C. Examiner that pretty much shows the absurdity of the Supreme Court's recent decision in the Hamdan case. Instead of clearly defining whether or not the US could try captives at Gitmo as enemy combatants(According to the Geneva Convention such individuals without a uniform or rank who are taken in the battlefield are not granted the same rights as a POW) the robed ones created further confusion by issuing a muddled ruling and forcing their will on another branch of government thus usurping the President's power to conducting and effectively fulfilling his role as Commander-In-Chief. I'd suggest that Justices Stevens, Breyer, Ginsberg, Souter, Kennedy, who issued this confusing or essentially useless legal gobbly-gook with regards to Hamdan vs Rumsfeld should reread the Constitution and realize that with regards to fighting the War on Islamic Terrorism or any war for that matter, the President is the point man in executing the war(This includes detaining enemy combatants as well as the command of our soldiers) followed by Congress (The control the purse). We'd be better off if these legal eagles did a better job at reading the Constitution and thinking before the creating a bigger mess for the President and this nation. The D.C. Examiner summed up the problem of the Judiciary's over-stretch when the noted the following:

What'’s worse, the court majority does so to utterly absurd effect. It purports to apply the protections of the international Geneva Conventions to terrorists who fight under no particular flag — and who themselves therefore do not operate under, nor abide by, the same conventions. And it adopts those conventions as part of American law enforceable under American courts, despite the fact that the Conventions'’ own language makes them enforceable via diplomatic action rather than through the courts of any one nation.

Even worse still, the court majority specifically substitutes its own judgment of "“military necessity"” for that of the president and military services. As Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in dissent (joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito, in support of a lower court decision written by now-Chief Justice John Roberts), the courtÂ’s assumption of such responsibility "“is so antithetical to our constitutional structure that it simply cannot go unanswered."”

Justice Thomas is right. The decision and the very act of choosing to decide it was precipitate and injurious to the republic. Both domestically and abroad, this nation very likely will be less safe as a result.

Here's hoping that Congress can formulate a law or set of laws that codify the guidelines for trying enemy combatants(If you recall, we've tried German spies/ combatants found on our shores during WWII in military tribunals as well as with the plotters in the Licoln assassination.)in the near future. I know that this will make the seperation of powers very fuzzy but it darn sure beats letting non-elected judges(Can't be held accountable to the voters because the Constitution deemed them interpreters of laws not creaters of laws) find some imaginary punumbras or emanations in the constitution and draw up their own laws.