Landmark Supreme Court Win for Liberty Points Way for Dem Victory in November

Update: CCR Produces Analysis of Landmark Supreme Court Decision

via mal contends
The Supreme Court decision (in Boumediene v. Bush /Al Odah v. United States) is a historic affirmation of the principle of habeas corpus (in Latin, "you shall have the body"), and a rejection of the acclaimed right of the tyrant, George W. Bush in this instance, to imprison another with no sound recourse for the accused; in these cases, the detained prisoners at the U.S. base at Guantánamo.

Habeas corpus refers simply to the right of the accused to go before an impartial judge and challenge the rationale behind the denial of his/her liberty.

"One of the oldest and most basic legal protections, habeas corpus affords the incarcerated the right to stand before a judge and confront the charges presented against him or her. The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) has been sending habeas counsel to represent the prisoners at the base since winning the first Guantánamo case, Rasul v. Bush, in 2004, and applauds today’s decision," reads CCR's press release.

That's a modest statement.

It's fitting that CCR, an organization that grew out the civil rights movement— specifically Arthur Kinoy and the Kunstler brothers (nigga-loving Jews as they were known back then, and let's never forget, in the 1960s by the southern states' white power structures) and 1,000s more heroes of liberty whose names history will not record—researched and argued this landmark victory for liberty.

It is also sobering, as a NYT editorial notes today, that "... habeas hangs by a single vote in the Supreme Court of the United States—a reminder that the composition of the court could depend on the outcome of this year’s presidential election. The ruling is a major victory for civil liberties—but a timely reminder of how fragile they are."

Sobering, yes, but also inspiring of optimism for the coming November rejection of the Bush-Cheney-McCain crowd.

Barack Obama who is for the moment underperforming with white women will undoubtedly improve his standing as the campaign crystallizes how dangerous an instrument the Supreme Court has become to the cause of liberty, specifically women's liberty.

Lose any one of the five-member majority, and replace him/her with a Scalia/Roberts/Alito/Thomas clone, as John McCain has promised to do were he elected, and the right of a woman to choose will vanish. MAKE NO MISTAKE.

The decades-old victory by the feminist movement (to which Hillary Clinton and many of her supporters can proudly lay claim) for women to have the simple power over their own bodies means nothing to the hateful ideology that is prepared to eradicate the centuries-old habeas corpus rights.

Thus, look for Hillary's supporters to move decisively to Obama's camp as the repercussions of a John McCain win become clear and unity beats back the forces of hate and tyranny. Obama should be thinking about Hillary as a Supreme Court appointment for when he wins this fall.

No votes yet


to inform you of this news but many Clinton supporters are not warming up to the idea one uterus equals one vote. I have heard numerous accounts of them being tired of what they feel is an attempt to blackmail them with into voting for Obama by envoking the Roe v. Wade argument.

Also, keep in mind the President appoints a nominee to the Supreme Court but the nominee does not become a Justice without the consent and approval of the U.S. Senate. I think many women support and vote for Democratic Senators fully expecting them to act in accordance with their constitutional power of advice and consent.

Let me refer you to a post from someone, who did not vote for Obama in the primary but will be in the fall, who expresses the sentiments of so many much better than I do here. She wrote "In case you were wondering" in response to this delightful discussion between Chuck Todd and Chris Matthews:

CHUCK TODD: ... So, I think when you look at this, and our experts, our pollsters said, boy they would worry about the suburban women thing. If they were Obama they'd worry about the suburban women thing first, before the men. They say, you know what? Hey, Bush won men by this much; you can still win it by losing men by that much. I'd argue and say if he slices men from 20 to 15, and you assume those women come home, then that's how he wins a big win. And he forces McCain to play defense.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: But in a political [unintelligible], women are low-hanging fruit, though, in the terms of politics.

TODD: Correct.

MATTHEWS: You can reach up and say, "I'm pro-choice, he's not."

especially like this part ...

And if, Maude forbid, they push McCain over the top, it will not be their fucking fault. If this country is so far gone that McCain can be pushed over the top by a handful of angry swing voters, the Democratic Party's got a serious problem, and it's not just that one we all live with.

Count me in amongst those "angy, older women". And I will lodge a protest vote in November. Obama isn't getting a pass from me.

ePMedia ... get the scoop with us!
If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little. ~ George Carlin

I was always an Edwards supporter, but Harding pretty much nails about how I feel toward those hate-filled boot-stompers in the blogosphere who made adult-like dialog impossible.

Listen up, pundits, party, and bullying bloggers: It is not women's job to "come home" to the party. It is the party's job to make us fucking feel welcome in our own "home." It is Obama's job to earn our votes. Taking us for granted is shitty, and threatening us with the loss of our bodily autonomy is about a zillion times shittier. STOP IT. You are not helping. You are driving voters away.

And you are seriously pissing off even those of us voters you can count on this year. I'm not ready to abstain just yet, but give me another couple decades of this bullshit -- of being told you won't bother to work for my vote, of being told it will be my own fault if Roe v. Wade is overturned, of being told that my concerns about sexism thriving in the party are overblown -- and I might just say hey, you know what? I've spent my entire adult life voting for Democrats, and they've never shown one real whit of interest in me. They've done nothing but take me for granted, because to them, I'm low-hanging fruit, not someone whose concerns actually merit any expenditure of time, effort, or political capital.

On abstaining.

I wish it weren't so.