Checking The Decider

(Click image for larger version.)

I've been enjoying Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson's musings of late. He has a terrific take on the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision against the Guantanamo military tribunals, which also lays down the law generally on Bush's claims that because we are "at war" he can do anything he damn well pleases. Robinson begins his latest column this way:

Finally.

It seemed almost too much to hope for, but the Supreme Court finally called George W. Bush onto the carpet yesterday and asked him the obvious question: What part of "rule of law" do you not understand?

... the fundamental message is clear: Despite his outrageous claims of virtually unlimited presidential power, the self-proclaimed Decider doesn't get to decide everything.

This decision strongly insists that, despite the eternal "war on terrorism," the executive branch must work in tandem with the congressional branch, and the judicial branch retains its oversight powers -- thus trimming Bush's sails as he continues his quest to become emperor, clothed or not. It also limits BushCo's ability to claim that the president's "war powers" allow him to circumvent FISA court approvals for such things as wiretaps. Blogging attorney Glenn Greenwald provides a detailed legal analysis of the decision that includes this gem:

... the President "may not disregard limitations that Congress . . . in proper exercise of its own war powers" imposes. That principle is based upon "the powers granted jointly to the President and Congress in time of war." Thus, even if the President possesses the power "absent congressional authorization" to, for instance, eavesdrop (or torture people), "he may not disregard limitations that Congress" imposes on such powers.

Chalk one up for the rule of law and against the Bush-Cheney-Rummy-Gonzales all-powerful executive branch cabal. I notice that AG Alberto Gonzales is already whining about the decision, so it will be interesting to see how BushCo responds to the new limitations on its "inherent" powers. Perhaps the neocons and their media cronies can accuse the Supreme Court of "treason," as they are with the New York Times because of its story about Bush's financial tracking program. After all, anything that doesn't signal blind acceptance of Bush's deeds is treason in their eyes. Seekers of unbridled power are like that.