Twenty-nine years ago, Samir Kutar broke into an apartment in Naharya to attack a young Israeli family. After murdering the father, he killed the four year old by crushing her skull against a rock. As the mother hid from the terrorist, she stifled the screams of her two-year-old, accidentally suffocating the child.  

Now the killer has been released from his life-sentence in return for the bodies of two kidnapped, murdered Israeli soldiers—and the unrepentant killer is welcomed as a triumphant hero by Hezbollah.  

The episode shows the value of the death penalty, especially in cases of terrorism: an executed killer can’t be freed and then honored for his ghastly crimes. Second, the incident exposes the true nature of Islamic extremism, which glorifies a vicious monster whose only accomplishment in life brought death to three innocents in their own home. 

Finally – a strict constructionist ruling from the Supreme Court.  Today is a good day and conservatives across the country, especially the legal scholars, need to praise the Court and encourage more rulings on these grounds.

Now, naturally, my first reaction was to hear what the liberals had to say….that’s the political energy that fuels me.  So I listened to Dianne Feinstein’s comments, and Chicago mayor Richard Daley’s comments and others and realized that they have no logical argument…just the propagation of fear.  They fear random gunfights and Wild West shoot outs, meanwhile they have their security teams carrying firearms, and they don’t live in the neighborhoods where you really have to worry about such things.  But the beauty of living in a society where gun ownership is a fundamental right is just that – you should be afraid that everyone has the ability to harm you, and you should feel protected by arming yourself. 

And like all of Barack Obama’s statements, this one appeals to your emotion, but makes no political sense and in no way identifies his position on major public policy.  So does he agree with the Supreme Court?  It’s either a fundamental right to self defense or it’s one the government can snatch away whenever a new sheriff comes to town.  What do you believe, Senator?

A great book is John Lott’s More Guns Less Crime.  He digs into the real statistics and the psychological profiles of criminals who prey on those who are the least likely to defend themselves.  It’s disgusting, but what’s even worse is a government that forces you to rely on their public services – meaning the cops who take 30 minutes to show up, if at all – as your first line of defense.   

Yes, this is frightening – for criminals who should fear breaking into a little old lady’s house who just may have a loaded gun in her nightstand.  This is a major victory but it’s not the end…there are many more fights and we can’t trust liberal politicians who are in charge of turning this ruling into sound law to do an about face just because the Supreme Court says so.  Now I’m going to start working on garnering support for concealed carry in D.C…

The U.S. Supreme Court made it illegal to execute persons convicted of child-rape in a 5-4 decision today.

 "The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy, who authored the majority opinion. The ruling broke on party lines, the liberal Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer siding with Kennedy.

"I would say that if he doesn't, it sounds like an unusually generous act by a Chief Justice."

Under questioning from Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.), former Bush administration spokesman Scott McClellan stated that ex-White House political mastermind Karl Rove would not, in his experience, be a trustworthy witness if he were not placed under oath while talking to lawmakers.

The Supreme Court’s decision last week in Boumediene v. Bush has justifiably called down the exasperation, incredulity, and anger of people who have actually read the United States Constitution. In case you missed it, the 5-4 majority opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy and joined by the Court’s four avowed liberals extended for the first time in history habeas corpus rights to captured military combatants.

In doing so, the Court struck down a 2006 law passed by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress, which specified the procedures by which captured terrorists held in military prisons could receive due process. The 2006 law, the Military Commissions Act, was only written, passed, and enacted because the Supreme Court in 2004 demanded that Congress do so. Put another way, as of last week, the Supreme Court – and more specifically, Justice Kennedy – has declared itself the final authority on making war, incarcerating enemy combatants, and, indeed, on the American people’s right to self-government.

This is not judicial activism. It is judicial tyranny.

Neither the United States military, its elected commanders in the executive branch, nor its representatives in Congress are now in control of America’s prosecution of the war on terror. Justice Kennedy is, or he seems to think.

Until he is disabused of this notion by a Congress with the guts to assert itself, the following not only may happen, but will, and very quickly:

- Captured terrorists will refuse to answer any questions without access to a lawyer;

- Captured terrorists will demand the public disclosure of the military’s evidence against them, thus exposing the means and methods employed by our intelligence community to gather such evidence;

- Captured terrorists will demand to confront their accusers, who will be soldiers on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan, in open court back here in the states; and,

- Captured terrorists will go venue shopping, filing their habeas claims in dozens of courts in hopes of getting the most liberal activist judge they can find.

The question isn’t how bad this decision is – it’s an outrage. The question is, what are conservative legislators going to do about it. Beginning in 1996 and continuing throughout the Republican majority in the House of Representatives, we had an aggressive, concrete agenda to combat judicial activism and supremacy.

Because Congress creates lower federal courts, Congress can also set its jurisdiction. Thus, except for the narrow field of cases in which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction – cases involving individual states, ambassadors, and the like – Congress can simply remove the Supreme Court from the picture. A “court stripping” strategy would reassert the legislative and executive branches’ co-equal status as interpreters of the Constitution. Much of the groundwork has already been set.

In September, 2004, the House passed the “Pledge Protection Act,” which removed the jurisdiction of lower federal courts and the Supreme Court to review any controversies surrounding the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

In 2004 and 2005, House conservatives introduced and vocally promoted similar legislation stripping from federal courts jurisdiction over any question stemming from a public official’s acknowledgement of God as the basis for our laws and government. The House also passed similar court-stripping legislation pertaining to homosexual marriage in 2004.

And all the while, Republican Houses of Representatives passed resolution condemning judicial activism, including judicial mischief such basing decisions on foreign law. Finally, in November, 2005, the House of Representatives passed a bill to break up the consistently radical 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals so to introduce some degree of rational jurisprudence to its jurisdiction.

The principles of that agenda can and should be revived and made a major issue in this year’s general election. Resolutions can be introduced condemning the decision, and these superficial actions are a good start. But Congress has far greater authority to end judicial activism than most people realize.

Contrary to the Court’s liberal majority, the United States is our government and our country, not just theirs.Congress has the power to take it back, and Republicans looking for a clear-cut issue that differentiates us from the Democrats should start taking it back.

JK: I’m stunned. And in one sense, I mean, I knew there were four justices who were prepared to do this, I can’t believe Justice Kennedy did it, and I can’t…it’s just a stunningly bad decision with enormously negative consequences.  

HH: Now Justice Scalia wrote this, “America is at war with radical Islamists. The enmity began by killing Americans and allies abroad, 241 at the Marine barracks in Lebanon.” He goes through and walks through all the attacks on us. He concludes, “Our armed forces are now in the field against the enemy in Afghanistan and Iraq. Last week, thirteen of our countrymen in arms were killed. In a game of bait and switch that today’s opinion plays upon the nation’s commander-in-chief, will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.” Do you agree, Senator Kyl? 

JK :Absolutely correct. And you know, the irony here is the Court has given us a little bit, us meaning Congress, some direction. They basically challenged us to write the procedures for dealing with these detainees. We did. And then a case came along, and they said we don’t think you have it exactly right. So we went back and we made revisions. And they are, by the description of the dissenters, the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by any country as enemy combatants. And yet, the Court, after inviting us to develop these procedures, and they are the most generous ever, anywhere, now strikes them down as inadequate. And as Justice Roberts said, it’s really hard to figure out why they’re inadequate based upon the test that the majority created.  

HH: Now Senator Kyl, it leaves us in limbo again. It doesn’t release any terrorists, though I think we’re coming close to the day that a district court somewhere tells a killer he gets to go free from Gitmo, I don’t know where, to South Florida. But what do you do now?  

JK: Well, let me just quote a little bit here from Justice Roberts. He says, “So who has won? Not the detainees. The Court’s analysis leaves them with only the prospect of further litigation to determine the content of their new habeas right, followed by further litigation to resolve their particular cases, followed by further litigation before the D.C. Circuit, where they could have started, had they invoked the DTA procedure. That’s the procedure that Congress created. This thing is now, I mean, there aren’t any guidelines, there’s no decision by the Court that clearly spells out what needs to be done here, so it’s basically a free-for-all. Every one of these people that are detained will file a habeas corpus writ. A federal district judge is going to have to resolve them. He’ll get all kinds of different confliction decisions. The questions of what kind of evidence is permissible, and looking at classified, and the standard for review, and what kind of new evidence, if any, can be educed on review, and all of these things are brand new because these people have never had habeas rights before. So you’re literally making the law as you go along. And nobody can even begin to predict where it’s all going to end up.  

Read the whole thing.

From my interview with Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff Joel Kaplan (transcript here):

HH: You know, I’ve read through the 70 pages, Mr. Kaplan, and I get to the end, and it seems like Anthony Kennedy’s apologizing for the havoc he has thrown us into, suggesting that one district court might manage all the habeas petitions, suggesting that intelligence has to be preserved, et cetera. But all I can see here is hundreds of lawsuits going on dozens and scores of years, compromising our security and encouraging our enemies. I mean, what happens next? 

JK: Well, that’s a great question, and you know, I think you’re right that it’s not clear that the five justices in the majority here understand what the implications of this are going to be, or maybe they began to understand at the end of the opinion. But look, the bottom line, I think, was expressed by Justice Scalia in his dissent, where he said this decision, “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.” And I don’t think, you can’t really get any more direct or explicit than that. There’s going to be literally hundreds of lawsuits brought in potentially district courts all over the country. And the Court made clear that the remedy that these district courts need to be able to apply is to release the detainees. I mean, imagine, imagine what the effect of that will be – individual district court judges around the country are going to get to decide that some member of al Qaeda, who today is safely imprisoned on Guantanamo Bay, can be released. It’s just a stunning, stunning decision by five justices of the Supreme Court.  

HH: There is one line in the opinion, Joel Kaplan, that jumped out at me. It’s at the end, Justice Kennedy writes, “unlike the President and some designated members of Congress, neither the members of Court nor most federal judges begin the day with briefings that may describe new and serious threats to our nation and its people.” Actually, they do describe every single day, not only serious threats but imminent threats. And it seems to me that Justice Kennedy was admitting here at the end, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it comes to the war.  

JK: Well, and you know, it didn’t stop them from basically turning the Constitution on its head. There are two branches, two elected, accountable branches, the Congress and the executive, who have these responsibilities of national security. And not only do they have the responsibilities, they have the authorities, they have the tools, they have the information necessary to protect the American people. And the Court admits that it doesn’t have it, but nonetheless, usurps that authority for itself. It’s just a terrible display of judicial activism, and one with real consequences for the safety and security of the American people.  

Read the whole thing.

Representatives of the two co-equal branches of government are both candidly stating the obvious truth: This is a terrible decision rendered by five justices --and a raft of 25 year old clerks-- unable to understand or unwilling to admit that they have no idea what the jihadists are doing or how this greatly complicates the war effort. 

The only redeeming aspect of this decision is the clarity it brings to the choice between Obama --who would appoint justices like those in the majority-- and McCain, who would appoint justices like those who dissented.  With a McCain victory and one or two retirements, the stage will be set for the reversal of this deeply dangerous decision.