Quote:
Originally Posted by m21sniper
I have no problem with SCOTUS' ruling. They're saying "no end runs around the constitution", it is a powerful rebuke to what we all have agreed (more or less) is an over-reaching administration.
Good for us. Seriously.
This ruling will also cause us to re-gain some face internationally, IMO. It will remind everyone why America was well thought of to begin with.
|
I agree. The Supreme Court is bound legally and ethically to make its decisions based upon our Constitution and laws. They did the right thing under that charter. What I'm trying to say is that we have not done a good job of adapting those laws to the current situation. We need to do that.
We are facing an enemy that was never envisioned, that could not possibly have been considered when our current laws and rules governing how we deal with them were written. We are applying outdated laws to a new threat. The Supreme Court absolutely must judge our actions against those laws until we give them new ones to judge us against. They don't (or at least should not) make those laws themselves. We have a separate process to do that.
Those that decry the Supreme Court's ruling on this have misplaced their anger. They should focus it upon those responsible for that other process; that of passing effective law to deal with this new threat. Those folks have taken half measures, and never laid the groundwork necessary to address this new threat. They tried to bend existing law to address it, and have now been called on that. Which, like you say, is a good thing.
Funny you should also mention the DC gun ban ruling. One would hope the Supreme Court will apply the same scrutiny under existing law and Constitutional standards as they did in the Gitmo case. If they do, there is only one possible ruling. What is also funny is that many who will applaud the Court's strict interpretation in the Gitmo case will decry one if handed down in the DC case. They will be looking for a more adaptable, "living" Constitution that will be "adapted" to "modern times" in the DC case, thereby allowing them to keep their ban intact.