Why This Court Keeps Rebuking This PresidentBreaking News
And never is the court more reluctant to act than when faced with a challenge to the president during wartime. Consider the historical record.
The court has ruled against a president in a time of armed conflict no more than a handful of times, most famously in Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer, when it held that Harry S. Truman lacked the constitutional authority to seize the nation’s steel mills to avert a strike during the Korean War. The invocation of two words — military necessity — by a commander in chief was usually all it took to silence a majority of the justices.
So it is extraordinary that during the Bush administration’s seven years, nearly all of them a time of war that began on Sept. 11, 2001, the court has been prompted to push back four times. Last week’s decision in Boumediene v. Bush, in which the court ruled that prisoners at Guantánamo Bay have a right to challenge their detentions in the federal courts, marks only the most recent rebuke.
“When viewed through the lens of history, it’s astounding,” says Neal Katyal, a law professor at Georgetown who argued against the government in one of those cases, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. So how are we to explain this shift from decades of deference to a willingness to check the president?
comments powered by Disqus
Vernon Clayson - 6/19/2008
The entire court doesn't rebuke the president, only that part that was displeased with the president adding conservatives and especially his making one of the new and conservative justices the chief justice. As grand as they believe themselves to be they are biased and petty, small men. They yearn for an Earl Warren, a chief justice to bring back opinions so favored by the liberals, government as big daddy. That's except for the police, to Warren and his ilk the police are jack booted thugs, while violent criminals are merely misguided persons who, with a little guidance, will be productive and decent citizens, far superior to heavy handed coppers.
Randll Reese Besch - 6/18/2008
Wish the Congress would too and stop this administration from continuing the war crime that is Iraq and Afghanistan.
- Rubio Surges Into Second In New Hampshire
- Branstad Says Cruz Ran ‘Unethical’ Campaign
- Christie Highlights Santorum’s Endorsement of Rubio
- Portman Comes Out Against Trade Deal
- Megyn Kelly Gets a Book Deal
- A Big List of the Bad Things Clinton Has Done
- An Unambiguous Sign Sanders Won Last Night’s Debate
- Still Friends at the End
- Quote of the Day
- Trump Still Leads as Clinton Slips
- Clinton Can’t Shake Image as Wall Street’s Friend
- Maddow Doesn’t See Sanders Winning
- Why Does the Media Still Shield Chelsea Clinton?
- Bush Jokes His Mother May Have Abused Him
- Rubio Closes the Gap in New Hampshire
- Humans Hard-Wired to Teach, Anthropologist Says
- Parents outraged after students shown ‘white guilt’ cartoon for Black History Month
- Maryland is once again considering retiring its state song
- One of the last remaining Nazis goes on trial in Germany
- Historian at the center of Sanders-Clinton debate
- James Loewen Says Additional Baltimore Confederate Statues Should be Removed
- NYT History Book Reviews: Who Got Noticed this Week?
- A historian’s advice to students thinking of getting a PhD in a tough economic climate
- German historian Heinz Richter cleared of charges