1. Many presume that the atrocious new legislation will immediately encounter legal challenge. But -- to repeat a question Randi Rhodes asked just now -- who has standing to bring a case? Detainees are disallowed from challenging their detention. The Supreme Court cannot intervene unless a case comes before them, and a case requires a plaintiff. The new law forbids plaintiffs from bringing cases. Catch 22.
2. A small -- but not small enough -- number of Democrats voted in favor of this ghastly bill. They did so because they feared the "soft on terror" label, and because they did not understand the ramifications. Word has it that even many Republican congressfolk did not read the legislation before signing on to it.
Every election year, we hear from the usual plants -- and they are plants, bought and paid for -- who tell progressive-minded folk that voting serves no purpose because Democrats are just as bad as Republicans. Those plants will now tell you not to support the party the upcoming elections because some Democrats betrayed our principles.
Don't listen to those voices.
We have a small but real chance of regaining both houses this fall. (Our propects improved just a few hours ago, with the resignation of Mark Foley.) A Democratic majority will have the ability to write new legislation. If Howard Dean has any ability to maintain party unity, he can bring the "bad" Democrats to heel.
5 comments:
joe, justin rood has consulted the center for constitutional rights on this one. apparently, challenges will be filed within days.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001637.php
i don't know the legal limitations, but there does appear to be a catch-22. but it will be the discretion of a judge to determine if that a case can go forward. this sort of thing happened in the south during the various rulings on segregation. bit of cat and mouse, and it got to the point where judges and courts were increasingly exasperated. of course the judiciary does not have the same, er, complexion it did then.
also, it's worth pointing out that foley's district does not - repeat, NOT - have the opportunity to replace his name on the ballot. his challenger, mahoney, had also filed a defamation lawsuit against foley for attack ads. ya gotta wonder if that will remain in play.
the bad news is that the repugs can find someone to run, but they'll have to do major league pr to get folks to write him in.
sorry; one more thing.
it also appears foley may be prosecuted under the child sex predator laws that he helped pass.
sometimes there is justice in this world; we'll see.
If you haven't already read it, I recommend one of today's Mahablog's
called "Choices."
Why is it the Republicans favor pedophilia and plants? What sick minds those are. The only thing I can think of that the two might have in common is that they are both power-hungry predators of naivity and/or ignorance whether natural, self-imposed, or just situational and transient. Power is fine, great, and dandy if you earn it honestly. What a freakish bunch of imposters.
Miss P.
Actually, in order to put an applicant out of court, the government will have to show that he or she is barred by law from applying for habeas corpus. Of course, a person can only be barred by a *constitutional* law, so the whole question of constitutionality is automatically in play as soon as the government raises the issue of standing.
Jim
Post a Comment