Not all Justices are lapdogs of Bush

On June 30 2006, the Financial Times ran a headline: “Justices prove to be no lapdogs of Bush”. It said so because “The US Supreme Court that dealt a historic blow this week to the executive powers of the Bush administration was, ironically, a court dominated by Republicans, and headed by a brand new chief justice hand-picked by President George W. Bush.”

Well, not quite.

As could be predicted, the arch conservatives of the Court (Justices Alito, Scalia and Thomas), voted in dissent of the judgment that the military commissions that the Bush Administration planned to use to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay Naval base in Cuba, were unauthorized by statute and violated a provision of the Geneva Convention.

Chief Justice Roberts (the fourth arch conservative) did not participate in the case as he had heard it in a lower court, where he had voted to uphold the legality of military commissions. However, even if he would have voted, it would not have made a difference in the outcome.

Four moderate-liberal or liberal justices (Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter and Stevens) were the ones who voted for the ruling, which became the majority opinion because of Justice Kennedy, a moderate-conservative, also voted for it.

The headline should have read: “Some Justices prove to be no lapdogs of Bush”, or "Only some Justices prove to be lapdogs of Bush". I am surprised that the Brits can make such errors in the English language!