“An era of lawless fascism and rubberstamp courts”
posted by Dave Hoffman
That’s what Tennessee law professor Glenn Reynold seems to say would be a fair characterization of our times if Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito (and presumably the Chief) had prevailed today in Hamdan. They didn’t, but it’s worth pointing out that Justices Roberts and Alito have nothing but time to consider chinks in Hamdan’s armor, and rumors of Justice Stevens’ possible retirement continue to swirl.
But Professor Reynolds then offers the following very strange sentence, complete with a link to an intemperate blogger urging further administration defiance:
“[Rebuking those who claim that we're an an era of LFaRC is] (another) good reason for Bush not to follow advice from some quarters to disobey the ruling, a la Andrew Jackson.”
Is it just me, or is this comment a little Quattrone-esque? And, why pick on Jackson, whose involvement in lawless rhetoric is probably apocryphal, and has little current political purchase anyway. Why not say: George Bush can try to ignore the consequences of Hamdan just like Dwight Eisenhower tried to ignore the consequences of Brown.
We’re going to have a special guest blogger offer some thoughts as to the why and how of Hamdan later this evening or tomorrow morning. In the meantime, check out the latest at SCOTUSblog, essential as always.
June 29, 2006 at 5:16 pm
Posted in: Constitutional Law
Print This Post
Responses (1)
karl - June 29, 2006 at 8:26 pm
It is hard to call it summer without a rumor or two of Justice Stevens retiring.
Leave a Reply