I am willing to bet my bottom dollar that if, hypothetically, George W. Bush criticized the Supreme Court Justices to their faces over a ruling that they made–and failed to explain that ruling properly in the process–he would have been excoriated by the pundit class. There is no reason, therefore, why Barack Obama should have been spared criticism by pundits, even though he played the role of George W. Bush in my hypothetical.
Fortunately, there has been pushback. Even if most pundits were unwilling to take on the White House over this issue, Chief Justice Roberts has decided to speak out. May his example encourage others, and discourage further White House bullying of the Supreme Court on this and other issues.
The mother of all walk-backs:
President Obama’s advisers are nearing a recommendation that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, be prosecuted in a military tribunal, administration officials said, a step that would reverse Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.’s plan to try him in civilian court in New York City.
The president’s advisers feel increasingly hemmed in by bipartisan opposition to a federal trial in New York and demands, mainly from Republicans, that Mohammed and his accused co-conspirators remain under military jurisdiction, officials said. While Obama has favored trying some alleged terrorists in civilian courts as a symbol of U.S. commitment to the rule of law, critics have said military tribunals are the appropriate venue for those accused of attacking the United States.
Obviously, no one can predict for certain what the Supreme Court will do in the Second Amendment case currently before it. But the trendlines have favored a ruling that the Second Amendment is an individual right, which is incorporated against the states
February 28, 2010 – 10:38 pm
Marc Thiessen is a former speechwriter for George W. Bush, who has made himself famous by defending practices like waterboarding. While this kind of discussion may be somewhat interesting on an academic level, I just have to call shenanigans when I read stuff like this:
“There’s a standard of torture in civil law,” [Thiessen] said, “which is severe mental pain and suffering. I also have a common-sense definition, which is, ‘If you’re willing to try it, it’s not torture.’ ”
Thousands of American soldiers have been willing to undergo waterboarding as part of their resistance training, Mr. Thiessen notes; therefore, it stands to reason that it is not torture.
February 23, 2010 – 7:26 pm
I am pleased and thrilled to note that paying taxes is voluntary, here in the United States. After all, the Senate Majority Leader says so.
Of course, I dare anyone to test Harry Reid’s contention that there is nothing compulsory about paying taxes. My delight notwithstanding, for whatever reason, I don’t imagine that I will have many takers–and the lack of takers will likely have nothing whatsoever to do with the “phraseology” of my post.
February 21, 2010 – 7:19 pm
Taking Jeffrey Rosen’s suggestion that Barack Obama might be a good Supreme Court Justice seriously requires suspending a whole lot of disbelief. I don’t just refer to buying into the notion that the President might appoint himself to the Supreme Court (restrain your guffaws), or accepting the belief that he might support a bid by Hillary Clinton to succeed him in 2012 in exchange for a promise that she will appoint him to the Supreme Court (I told you to restrain your guffaws!). I don’t even refer to buying into the notion that the President is a latter day Louis Brandeis (they both were community organizers, don’tcha know?). I mean that when one peers beneath the surface, Rosen’s argument that the President’s background and temperament would make him ideal for the high Court just cannot be taken seriously.
Rosen notes with glee the “smackdown” the President supposedly delivered in the State of the Union address over the Court’s decision in Citizens United. Is Rosen aware that said smackdown was completely off-base? Are we supposed to take seriously the contention that Barack Obama–having delivered an off-base smackdown–is some kind of ideal counterpoint to the “conservative hothead Scalia”?…
February 12, 2010 – 11:36 am
Commenting on this post, Professor Orin Kerr is kind enough to inform me that the position taken by the Obama Administration on the issue of warrantless tracking of cell phones is consistent with the position held by the Department of Justice going back to the Clinton Administration, which means that indeed, the Justice Department under the Bush Administration took the same position that is being taken now under President Obama.
February 11, 2010 – 2:32 pm
The Obama Administration believes that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to the whereabouts of your cell phones.
February 9, 2010 – 5:09 pm
But no longer. Things are quite different now.
February 8, 2010 – 9:45 pm
The Cossacks work for the Czar.
February 3, 2010 – 4:44 pm
Yesterday, we saw that Admiral Mike Mullen is unequivocally in favor of repealing Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell.
