Another point goes to the rule of law

In the ongoing battle of bu$h v western civilization, western civilization scored another small victory today. In today's ruling, in the case of Parhat v Gates, the high court found that the petitioner, Huzaifa Parhat, was incorrectly classified as an enemy combatant and directed the United States to immediately release or transfer Parhat from detention at Guantanamo Bay, or expeditiously set up a new tribunal that meets the criteria set forth by the court. The court also stated that its disposition was without prejudice to Parhat's right to seek release immediately through a writ of habeas corpus in the district court, pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Boumediene v. Bush.

The text of the opinion contains classified information, and a redacted version is being prepared for public release. We will be watching for it.

We aren't in favor of letting terrorists walk free, but we are in favor of making damned sure we have the right people locked up, so we are always excited when the rule of law wins a round, especially after the beating it's taken for the last eight years.

~~BG

There's more: "Another point goes to the rule of law" >>

At the end of the day

John Edwards campaigned in Dublin, GA. "Georgia Senate minority leader Robert Brown of Macon introduced Edwards at the farmer's market where an estimated crowd of at least 400 had gathered... 'Senator Edwards is the best candidate. He can win in November,' Brown said before rally. 'He's also very much in tune with what's going in in places like rural Georgia.'"

Also in GA, Obama visited a church in Macon where he spoke about his faith: "Poverty has no place in a world of plenty, and hate has no place in a world of believers."

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) plans to endorse Obama on Monday, according to the NYT. Steve Benen added more insights.

FISA tomorrow at 4:30 p.m. -- In an interview with McClatchy's Matt Stearn, "Clinton said she would break from the campaign trail to return to Washington Monday" in planning "to vote to block a bill to extend the expansion of electronic eavesdropping powers because it provides immunity for phone companies..." Per a FDL update, Obama will be there, too. Yee haw!

Mitt's up! -- Romney rose in FL polls via Chris Bowers: "Zogby now shows a 30%-30% tie, while yesterday McCain lead 31%-28%. Insider Advantage shows Romney ahead 26%-24%, whereas yesterday it was a 23% to 23% tie. Rasmussen shows Romney extending his lead to 33%--27%, whereas three days earlier Romney only led 27%-23%. In fact, the last four polls conducting Florida tracking show the state moving from McCain 25.5%--23.5% Romney, to Romney 29.3%--27.8% McCain." Looks like a Repub slugfest to the finish.

McCain's running mate -- Lemme imitate SNL's church lady: "Could it be... Condi?" Thus sayeth the Prince of Darkness, "...talk to ordinary people about [Condi] and they say, boy, that's terrific. The politicians don’t like it.” Video at TP.

Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday questioned Huckabee about evidence of Saddam's WMDs. The Huckster replied, "I don’t have any evidence.... ...My point was that, no, we didn’t find them. Did they get into Syria? Did they get into some remote area of Jordan? Did they go some other place? We don’t know. They may not have existed. But simply saying — we didn’t find them so therefore they didn’t exist — is a bit of an overreach." Shorter Huckster: "Eeeb, eeeb, eeeb, eeeb!"

Krugman series, Part I: "Why has the Bush economy been so lousy?" See also bmaz's recent post, "Our Collapsing Economy - How We Got Here."

U.S. military death toll reached 3,934. "The AP count is three higher than the Defense Department's tally, last updated Friday at 10 a.m. EST."

Iraqi troops arrived in Mosul, "site of recent deadly insurgent attacks, in an effort to suppress militant groups." Iraq's Defense Ministry spokesman Askari said, "They are Iraqi army forces and include troops, mechanized troops and air force. The plan will be similar to the ones implemented in Baghdad and Diyala [province]." LATimes

So now Bush shifts the military's focus to Afghanistan and Pakistan. " 'The sense I get is that at least in military terms they are getting a response from Washington which they weren't getting all along,' said Schaffer, a career foreign service officer who was deputy assistant secretary of state for South Asia in the administration of former President Bush."

"The Week Ahead" at SCOTUSblog -- "No oral arguments are scheduled and no non-capital orders are expected to be issued from the Court this week." Reply briefs due Friday by 2 p.m. on Dada v. Mukasey.

On personal note -- It's fundraising time and for a good cause. Blue Girl needs a computer. So if you can throw some bucks her way -- the goal is $750 -- she can get back online sooner than later. Purdy please?

[That's all...no more after the jump.]

There's more: "At the end of the day" >>

At the end of the day

Nevada primary recap -- Clinton 51%, Obama 45%, Edwards 4%. For the GOP, Mitt 51%, Paul 14%, McCain 13%, Huck and Fred tied at 8%, Rudy 4%. CNN "[T]wo out of three Nevadans who caucused chose a Democrat instead of a Republican for president." NVDems

GOP primary in SC -- McCain 33%, Huck 30%, Fred 16%, Mitt 15%, Paul 4%, Rudy 2%. The Democratic SC primary is Jan. 26. CNN

UPDATED analysis of both primaries without M$M spin from Blue Girl and Pale Rider.

In the end, GOP-wise, it's how many delegates that Mitt can get. Well said, Matt Yglesias (h/t Atrios). Same is true on the Democratic side.

Don't let elections interfere with holding Cheney to account. Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) accepts no excuses. ITMFA!

Isn't bipartisanship overrated? Kevin Drum questioned it. Blue Girl likened bipartisanship with aWol to Democrats getting date raped. Gadfly called it simply bullshit and for good reasons.

More Plame -- A missing email "uber-timeline" from Emptywheel.

Violence exploded in Iraq: Trouble with Moqtada al Sadr... Iraq's national security advisor was taken hostage but later released. Police stormed a "booby-trapped mosque on the outskirts of Nasiriyah the day after its members attacked police in Nasiriyah, killing more than 100 people and injuring more than 200 in the two cities" when including Basra attacks. Suicide bombers hit police in Ramadi, killed 6, injured 13. In Tal Afar, a rocket killed 7. The "worst violence in months in Basra." McClatchy

SCOTUS yesterday: Slackers! "Last term, the Court heard argument[s] in 71 cases, the lowest total in the Court’s modern history." The current caseload so far, 70, subject to change. In-depth on types of cases, "Circuit Scorecard" at the linkie.

In other news -- The SCOTUS will hear two job discrimination cases -- "One case concerns protection for employees against retaliation for reporting the discriminatory actions of a supervisor. The other involves age discrimination suits when the employer says that it took an action like laying off a worker for legitimate reasons not related to age." NYT

Look who's whining -- Tom DeLay: "If McCain gets the nomination, I don't know what I'll do. I might have to sit this one out." Someone call the bug thug a waaahbulance! Tim Grieve from yesterday.

Krugman called out McCain's tax-talking dipshittery, the media's la-dee-dah attitude, and the Bush "tax family" con. Plus a smackdown of Bush economic policy. George must be a Chicago fan: Da bears win.

Intel Dump advised retired Gen. Tommy Franks what he could do with the $100,000 he received from a veterans charity scam.

[That's all...no more after the jump.]

There's more: "At the end of the day" >>

So much for 'stare decisis'

STARE DECISIS - Lat. "to stand by that which is decided." The principal that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts; To abide or adhere to decided cases. It is a general maxim that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from.

If you Google Stare Decisis + Alito confirmation, you get over 30,000 hits. I recall him using that phrase exactly when he was facing the Senate and confirmation to the court.

I bet Senator Durbin does too:

SEN. DURBIN: Most of us are troubled by this 1985 memo. You said yesterday, you would have an open mind when it came to this issue. I'm sorry to report that your memo seeking a job in the Reagan administration does not evidence an open mind. It evidences a mind that sadly is closed in some areas. And yet, when we have tried to press you on this critical statement that you made in that application, a statement which was made by you that said the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion, you've been unwilling to distance yourself and to say that you disagree with that.

ALITO: The things that I said in the 1985 memo were a true expression of my views at the time from my vantage point as an attorney in the Solicitor General's office. But that was 20 years ago and a great deal has happened in the case law since then. Thornburg was decided and Webster and then Casey and a number of other decisions. So the stare decisis analysis would have to take account of that entire line of case law.

I knew that little weasel wasn’t trustworthy. I knew it. And today, he proved me right.

I am confident that one of the attorneys who post here will address today’s Supreme Court decision after they read the opinions in much more detail and context than I can, but that doesn’t make me any less pissed off right now.

My anger comes from being female, and a health care professional. I know that Intact Dilation and Extraction is a medical procedure that is never undertaken lightly, and is indeed quite rare. When it is exercised, it is a last resort option. It is never an afterthought form of birth control. It is only exercised in the event of danger to the life and health of the mother or in the case of a doomed fetus.

Many years ago, I used to work in a high-risk obstetrics and fertility practice. Our goal was always a live birth and a healthy outcome. But in that practice, we didn’t always get what we wanted. Sometimes parents were faced with heart-wrenching decisions. The kind of decision where you have to decide which option is less bad, because none of them are good. Horrible decisions that no one should ever have to make.

Today, some of those couples just got dealt a sucker-punch.

Now, there will be women forced to carry doomed fetuses to term. To remain pregnant knowing that they are not bringing home a healthy baby at the end of it all. And worse still, there are the physical dangers to the mother.

I could write a thesis in laboratory medicine about what can go wrong at the end of a failed pregnancy. But instead I am going to tell you about one disorder, DIC, or Disseminated intravascular coagulation. It is a terribly nasty disorder, and quite often fatal. Fortunately it is quite rare.

The leading cause of the disorder in reproductive-age females is intrauterine fetal demise.

On Mother’s Day of last year, a woman came in to the labor and delivery unit of the hospital where I was working at the time, and delivered a stillborn infant. Two days later, she was critical, suffering from DIC. Frankly, I don’t know if she made it or not. She was still alive when I finished my last shift that week, and she was gone when I returned. But I never looked in the computer to check the details of her demise. I didn’t want to know if she left horizontal.

I don’t care if it is only five additional women a year who end up contracting DIC, and I don’t care if all five recover…The fact remains that they should have the right to control their own bodies and make the decisions that are best for them and their families.

This SCOTUS decision smacks of misogyny and willful ignorance. And it is condescending as hell. Families faced with the tragedies that lead to the decision to opt for the procedure are not making flip, split-second, devil-may-care decisions. They do not deserve to have a heartbreaking decision that could save the womans life denied them.

And we won't even get into compromise of future fertility. That was quite a position for the "pro-family" conservatives to take...

I hope this issue is revisited soon and this bad decision is overturned in short order.

If it is not, ladies and Gentlemen, meet President Hillary Clinton.

There's more: "So much for 'stare decisis'" >>

SCOTUS Rebukes Bush Administration on CO2 Emissions

In a narrow 5-4 decision (the usual cast of characters – Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia dissenting) the Supreme Court ruled today that the EPA, under the Clean Air Act does indeed have the authority to regulate the amount of CO₂ emissions produced by automobiles. This was a stinging rebuke to Bush administration policy.

There were three questions before the court as they deliberated the case:

_Do states have the right to sue the EPA to challenge its decision?

_Does the Clean Air Act give EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases?

_Does EPA have the discretion not to regulate those emissions?

On the first two questions they answered in the affirmative. On the last, they ordered the EPA to “re-evaluate the position that it has the discretion to not regulate tailpipe emissions.”

Five justices said the agency must tie its rationale more closely to the Clean Air Act.

"EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change," Stevens said. He was joined by his liberal colleagues, Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter, and the court's swing voter, Justice Anthony Kennedy.

This is a huge step toward coming to grips with the looming threat of global warming.

After all, if you don’t deal with reality, reality will deal with you.

There's more: "SCOTUS Rebukes Bush Administration on CO2 Emissions" >>

Spouses Serve and Sacrifice, too

A group of military retirees is taking their case to the Supreme Court, attempting to overturn a 25-year-old statute that allows for the former spouses of military retirees to receive half of that retirement benefit when the marriages dissolve. The court has agreed to hear the case. I am watching this one closely, and I feel that it will set the timbre for the Roberts Court as it sits today, with the current cast of characters.

The retirees argue in their petition that their retirement is an exclusive and privileged entitlement, and former spouses are not entitled to a share of the retirement largess.

Bull. The spouses earned their share. It's only right they receive it, and I think I can make you see my point without beating you over the head with a multi-page rant. Military spouses sacrifice and serve along side their spouses. Military spouses keep the family functioning, and usually do it on less money than the family would realize in the civilian sector.

But lets forget the emotional appeals and reduce it to what it's all about...the money.

Military spouses make career sacrifices in support of their spouses and the mission. It is the rare military spouse indeed that gets vested in a retirement plan. While we bring diverse experience, adaptability and flexibility to the table, and generally prove to be ideal employees, advancement is stunted, and we usually have no choice but to accept an initial set-back wage-wise when we relocate to a new billet with our spouses.

The retirees are thinking about their own comfort in their retirement years, but so are the spouses, who as a general rule have little or no retirement funds because we are never in a job long enough to participate in the matching contributions, and sometimes we can't even participate and pay our way. Our 401 K is what we can afford to take out after we buy cars and insurance and school supplies and groceries and mortgages and clothing and school uniforms and tuition to parochial schools and rent and utilities and new tires and tune-ups and all the other things that every other family has to pay for - with one glaring exception. There is never any free childcare because grandma isn't close at hand.

We don't advance at the rate our skills and experience would dictate. I have known military wives who, by the time they graduated from college, had transcripts from 10 or 12 schools.

The sacrifices the spouses make are worth recognition. I hope that point is not merely brought up, but driven home, when the case is argued. Spouses serve and sacrifice too, and they deserve to benefit from the rewards they helped their spouse to reap. With this conservative court, I worry about the outcome.

There's more: "Spouses Serve and Sacrifice, too" >>