“Less than 24 hours after a federal judge in New York ruled the federal government could not indefinitely detain “suspected” terrorists, the Obama administration asked a court to suspend the ruling.”

Forget party loyalty (because this would be happening no matter who was in office). This is not blasted over every single news site, paper, and magazine right now, and it should be. 

While everyone is caught up in defending their “side” during this election, talking and not listening, this is the kind of bullshit that slips by. The United States of America, making legal a practice that violates human rights laws.

Judge Forrest’s ruling is worth reading. A snippet (emphasis mine):

And this Court gives appropriate and due deference to the executive and legislative branches–and understands the limits of its own (and their) role(s). But due deference does not eliminate the judicial obligation to rule on properly presented constitutional questions. Courts must safeguard core constitutional rights. A long line of Supreme Court precedent adheres to that fundamental principle in unequivocal language.

Although it is true that there are scattered cases–primarily decided during World War II–in which the Supreme Court sanctioned undue deference to the executive and legislative branches on constitutional questions, those cases are generally now considered an embarrassment (e.g., Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944) (upholding the internment of Japanese Americans based on wartime security concerns)), or referred to by current members of the Supreme Court (for instance, Justice Scalia) as “wrong” (e.g., Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) (allowing for the military detention and execution of an American citizen detained on U.S. soil)). Presented, as this Court is, with unavoidable constitutional questions, it declines to step aside.