My Pride

I'm not flag waver, far from it, but this (linked from [TalkLeft]) is what we are so dang proud of (emphasis added):

[Justice Breyer]: [...] I cannot tell you how the courts will answer these questions. But as you understand, answers will be forthcoming. Our judicial system is open. [...] And, if the government claims that the court lacks jurisdiction to decide a particular matter, the court, not the government, will decide if that is so [...]

[...] in our system, habeas corpus represents the norm, lack-of-jurisdiction the exception.

[...] We do not yet have authoritative judicial answers to many of the legal questions raised, but past experience during periods of emergency suggests several general principles [...]

1) The Constitution applies even in times of dire emergency. [...]

2) [...] emergency or no emergency [... the law and the Constitution] seek an equilibrium permitting the government to respond to threats without abandoning democracy's commitment to individual liberty. [...]

3) A proper equilibrium requires courts to learn from past mistakes. What mistakes? They include the speech-censoring Alien and Sedition Acts [...] They include treatment of Japanese Americans during World War II [...]

4) To avoid those mistakes bench and bar must ask at least two questions: Why? and Why Not? [...] "why is this restriction necessary?" [...] why not achieve your security objective in less restrictive ways?

[...] the American law-making process is one, not of law being dictated by judges or, for that matter, legislators. It is one of law "bubbling up" [...]

That is why the many disagreements among us, reported in the press -- about government restrictions, security threats, civil liberties -- do not mean that disaster is upon us, but that the democratic process is at work. [...]

12:25:16 PM   permalink: []   feedback:   comments: []