UPDATE: Latest on NDAA detention case

The indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act has spurred much opposition.  The Plaintiff's have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene--at least temporarily.   Hopefully, the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually rule on the merits of this statute.  Although the statute is vague, it is potentially dangerous.  Further, it could be very difficult to determine if, when and who is detained.  Anyone who thought Pres. Obama would be a strong supporter of civil rights has been mistaken. Thanks to Bennett Jones for the link



UPDATE:  Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg refused to block enforement of the controversal NDAA provisions. The law will remain in effect.  This was a long shot and, as most expected, the government won and the plaintiffs lost.

Distrubing Comments from S.Ct. Justice Ginsburg

In a visit to Cairo, Egypt, Justice Ginsburg told Al Hayat television, “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.”



Instead, she urged Egyptians to look elsewhere to more modern constitutions in South Africa, Canada, and even the European Convention on Human Rights.



Of course, not one of these governing documents comes close to adequately guaranteeing the fundamental human rights and liberties enshrined in our U.S. Constitution. It’s also worth pointing out that Ginsburg’s eagerness to diminish the sanctity of America’s supreme law is hardly shocking, as this isn’t the first time she’s gone out of her way to disparage the document she swore an oath to uphold.

Getting Serious about the Justices

Okay, let me get serious for a moment about our Supreme Court Justices. A few serious, but opinionated comments:
CJ ROBERTS: A consistently conservative CJ, just like his predecessor Rehnquist. Eminently qualified to be CJ. Although he often has opinion-assigning authority, he doesn’t hog it. At his confirmation hearings he showed great knowledge of the Constitution and was able to charm many of the skeptics.
Samuel ALITO: Had trouble coming up with one for him, hence the long reach. In spite of the negative connotation, I was pleased with his nomination and confirmation. He might be one of the few who takes judicial restraint seriously. It’s a big feather in his cap to get authorship of the landmark McDonald opinion. The nickname comes from his tendency to be ruthlessly conservative in his opinions like his namesake was in history as a warrior and ruler. Too much knee-jerk conservatism. On the positive side, without him our Second Amendment rights might still be buried under a liberal smokescreen.
Anthony KENNEDY: IMHO, the Justice most likely to be able to rise above ideology to do real judging. I agree with Kennedy more often than any other Justice. As the most frequent swing-vote, one of the most powerful public officials in America. IMHO, he usually gets the big ones right, e.g., Heller, McDonald, Boumediene and the corporate campaign finance case. Probably the closest thing to a real libertarian on the Court. Perhaps a little too conservative when it comes to the rights of suspects and defendant.
Antonin SCALIA: The most brilliant, witty, perceptive and overall the best writer and researcher. At one time he was my favorite and I thought he was serious about setting aside ideology. He seems to be have become another knee-jerk conservative. He writes too many nit-picking dissents. However, his brilliance came through in his McDonald concurrence which made mincemeat of Stevens’ dissent. No one on the Court comes close to his intellect, esp. the liberals.
Clarence THOMAS: Frequently way out in right-field. Times have changed and precedents have come and gone since the 1800’s. Tends to be a knee-jerk conservative—sometimes an embarrassment. Nickname comes from his tendency to remain totally silent at oral argument.
Stephen BREYER: Most transparently aggressive of the left-wing cultural warriors on the Court. Not impressed with his intellect, but am impressed with his creativity. He can find more arguments that have little or no basis in the Constitution, history or precedent to justify his preferred result than any Justice I’ve seen. Over-sized ego. His huckstering of his book is an embarrassment.
Ruth Bader GINSBURG: I am impressed with her intellect but not with her knee-jerk liberalism. As for the nickname, check out some of her recent photos.
Sonya SOTOMAYOR: Not impressed yet. She will probably turn out to be another knee-jerk liberal.
Elena KAGAN: Too early to tell, but given her background and her nominator, she’ll probably turn out to be another knee-jerk liberal. Too much experience in academe, not enough in areas that should count more.
Finally, the most recent retiree, STEVENS: another nickname would be John Paul, “Don’t burn that flag” Stevens. Some of his later year opinions were weak. Although not as bad as some of the others, generally a knee-jerk liberal.
I’m anxious to hear your opinions on this crew.

Irreverent nicknames for Supreme Court Justices

All right, let’s have a little fun and a few laughs. I know this is irreverent and disrespectful, but I have little respect for any of the Justices. I know the stuffed shirts, and Supreme Court idolaters will not be pleased, but there must be a few people out there with a sense of sarcastic humor.

The Justices already have in-court nicknames, but let’s have some fun and make up some new ones.

CJ John, “Rehnquist II,” Roberts (or “the Charmer”)

Clarence “19th Century” Thomas (or “Big Mouth”)

Antonin, “The Originalist,” Scalia (or “the Professor,” “the Scourge” [of oral argument])

Samuel, “Attila,” Alito.

Stephen “the Huckster” Breyer

Sonya,“Wise Latina,” Sotomayor

Elena, “Ivory Tower,” Kagan

Ruth Bader, Sourpuss” Ginsburg, and finally, my favorite Justice

Anthony “The trapeze artist” Kennedy (or “How much am I bid”)

We certainly can’t let Stevens get by even though he has retired:

John Paul “way past retirement” Stevens.