A Governing Philosophy Rebuffed (Bush)

[ProSense]

Analysis

A Governing Philosophy Rebuffed

Ruling Emphasizes Constitutional Boundaries

By Peter Baker and Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 30, 2006; Page A01

For five years, President Bush waged war as he saw fit. If intelligence officers needed to eavesdrop on overseas telephone calls without warrants, he authorized it. If the military wanted to hold terrorism suspects without trial, he let it.

Now the Supreme Court has struck at the core of his presidency and dismissed the notion that the president alone can determine how to defend the country. In rejecting Bush's military tribunals for terrorism suspects, the high court ruled that even a wartime commander in chief must govern within

For many in Washington, the decision echoed not simply as a matter of law but as a rebuke of a governing philosophy of a leader who at repeated turns has operated on the principle that it is better to act than to ask permission. This ethos is why many supporters find Bush an inspiring leader, and why many critics in this country and abroad react so viscerally against him.

At a political level, the decision carries immediate ramifications. It provides fodder to critics who turned Guantanamo Bay into a metaphor for an administration run amok. Now lawmakers may have to figure out how much due process is enough for suspected terrorists, hardly the sort of issue many would be eager to engage in during the months before an election.

more...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/29/AR2006062902300.html

It's not about permission, it's about following the law and respecting the Constitution.

[ProSense]

1. Mommy! The SCOTUS Spanked Me!

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/06/30/mommy-the-scotus-spanked-me/