Justice Scalia mouthing off about the detainee case shows a disrespect for the institution that quite arguably is worse than any crazy-eyed living constitutonalist offers. Though Hamdan's own lawyers were agnostic, five amici requested he recuse himself ala the Newdow case. Scalia did not, providing a lifeline for the government throughout. Meanwhile, Graham/Kyl of the "let's do nothing to clarify things except to strip/limit their rights" Detainee Treatment Act appears to have done some skullduggery to slant divided "legislative intent" their way.
The audio of the case btw was available by around 12:30, first showing up on C-SPAN3 and a bit later on CourtTV. As usual, I ask: why can we not have similar audio -- come on Souter, no one will even see you -- consistently when important cases (I reckon ten to twenty a term) are heard? The movement sorts play to cameras in various ways already (on the lawn, outside the court room, and so forth), while the words on already available. Sheesh ... they should have had a sort of "court on tape" for years now. The recent decision to label who's who on the transcript makes it even easier to do this. [Various Hamdan stuff, including an audio link, can be found at ScotusBlog.]
As to the DTA, Sen. Levin has strongly rejected those like his two brethren here who wants to make it retroactive. Suggests what happens when you "compromise" with those currently in power. Meanwhile, respecting the NSA spying issue, he went on Chris Matthews -- known to those in the know as a backhanded propagandist for the Right ("most people except for the nuts think the President is a good guy") to say that "the question is is it legal, or do you have to modify the law in order to make it legal." Of course, the censure thing is a bad idea before fake hearings to determine not what we already know (it's illegal), but the true breadth of the illegality.
In other words, another member of the Democratic leadership who will not stand up for the truth except now and again, when they find out that their timidity/establishment tone means shit (e.g., the DTA matter). Gary Hart was on Democracy Now! mentioning how he was upset at his own party for similar reasons. [See here, with another interesting story about South Dakotan Native Americans opposing the anti-abortion law there.] Guy became sort of a senior fellow of late, especially on security type matters ... writes a lot too, I have noticed. Anyway, in the words of Glen Greenwald's blog, where the Senate stuff here has been discussed of late:
That's an insulting and totally unacceptable response to an incredibly important (and purely legal) question. There is simply no excuse for this behavior in our system of government. Congress has a right to have questions like this answered, particularly when the DOJ, at the same time, offers long-winded responses to Republican questions that are nowhere near as fundamental or important.
This is in response to the non-answers to various Democratic questions on the NSA program, while the suck-up questions of the Republicans are used as they were meant to be: talking points. In other words, the response of a tyrant, "unfit to be the Ruler of a free People." A tyrant that has essential support from the legislature who "too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice." They too have ignored reminders of the circumstances and ideals of our settlement here. We must therefore, acquience in the Necessity of separation ... by the ballot. For, while they wage war against our ideals and liberties, we must hold them to be our enemies.
For what else is tyranny than a President who proclaims to be above the law, but when called upon it lamely tries to say it is but mere hot air that was always done that way? This was done in the Patriot Act, yet again, respecting an essential oversight provision. But, only Sen. Leahy spoke out.
Perhaps, again, we must modify the law in order to make it "legal." For is that not the only problem?