Supreme Court Decisions

[Professor S]

I have never been one to attack the Supreme Court over their decisions and powers. I am a firm believer in the checks and balances our constitution provides, so that no single branch can dominate the country. But things are starting to change...

When the Supreme Court ruled that the US military must abide by the Geneva convention when dealing with illegal combatants, they completely overstepped their bounds. Whether or not you agree with the decision in spirit, there is one area where there is no debate: THEY HAD NO RIGHT TO MAKE THAT DECISION.

Here's why: By deciding that illegal combatants, meaning terrorists or any other combatants not formallty representing a sovereign nation or in official uniform, must abide by the Geneva convention the Supreme Court has signed a de-facto treaty with groups like Al Quaeda. Only the legislative and executive branches have the right to do this. Also, there is no legal backing for he decision as the Geneva convention SPECIFICALLY offers no benefits to the illagal combatants I described. Keep in mind, also, since the courts essentially signed a wartime treaty and is holding the US to that treaty with no agreement from the other party, only the US is held accountable for Geneva conventuion articles. The absurdity of this entire situation and the thinking behind it mystifies me.

Here is the article I'm referring to, in case you are wondering if I'm making this up.

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

...

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

...

The terrorists and insugents that are being captured are in NO WAY COVERED UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTION. In fact, they are specifically EXEMPT FROM IT. But apparently the Supreme Court decided it didn't actually need to read the convetntion to make a binding ruling on it...

This ruling, combined with the horrific ruling that local government can condemn housing to sell to corporations to increase tax revenue, and the Courts are completely out of there minds. Its to the point where the constitution is being trampled to support political agendas and the only way to stop them is to amend the constitution (and I'm not talking about gay marriage bans). This should NOT be happening and the power that the courts have assumed is far beyond what was intended.