Louie Gohmert, a Republican representative from Texas, has a beef with the Supreme Court: its justices are deciding questions of law. Gohmert — not to be confused with Gomer (Pyle) or Homer (Simpson) — is unhappy with the court’s majority opinion that Guantanamo prisoners are entitled to the constitutionally guaranteed right of habeas corpus, allowing them to force the government to justify their incarceration in court. In response, Gohmert sponsored a bill that would relocate the Gitmo facility to the grounds of the court, and would halve the court’s budget if the justices declined to follow the legislation’s dictates.
With the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Congress attempted to strip US courts of jurisdiction over complaints from “enemy combatants”. (This is the same bill purporting to immunize administration officials and government personnel from prosecution for violating the Geneva Conventions and US anti-torture laws.) In June of this year, the court declared that the relevant section of the Act is unconstitutional and that the plaintiffs in the case, a group of young men rounded up in Afghanistan in 2002 and held without charge and without access to civilian courts ever since, are in fact subject to the jurisdiction of US courts — the Bush administration argued that since Guantanamo is in Cuba, US laws don’t apply — and have the right to petition them.
Gohmert says the court’s ruling amounted to nothing more than “self-appointed war powers,” and if the justices are so keen to interfere with what he apparently sees as the congressional and executive branch prerogative to suspend the constitution at will, then they can damned well take responsibility for the entire Guantanamo mess.
Clearly the Texas congressman, elected under constitutional guidelines to a constitutionally established legislative body that is one third of a constitutionally established tripartite government, has a (Homer) Simpsonesque grasp of how government works. One wonders whether he would object in equally wounded fashion to an executive order eliminating his job and his right to protest such an action in court.
Given CJ Roberts dissenting opinion, I wouldn’t give this guy TOO much beef.
These people are all for law, when it is on there side.
Just because he’s in good company doesn’t mean a 2×4 upside the head isn’t still warranted.
The United States (Old Betsy) this young genius, complex bastion of Liberty and Freedom should always be known as a country of opportunity,fairness,concern for the people and individuals, that lives by the guardian of this, the United States Constitution,Bill of Rights and The Supreme Court.
Without the three and reverence for the three, the United States purpose and structure is greatly undermined.
Even individuals who don’t like,don’t agree and express disfavor with any one of the three (even if he or she hasn’t a full comprehension of what they stand for) have the right to express themselves. Just to educate though, you can’t have a United States Constitution and Bill of Rights and have laws interpreted and disputes settled when all else fails, without the Supreme Court, so it not only has the right to “mettle in questions of law” it has an obligation and must, to come to the best considered,fair and lawful decisions.
Umm…you don’t really know what you are talking about, do you?
It’s quite clear you don’t even understand the debate.