Thursday, November 30, 2006

Gilmore v. Gonzales moves forward at SCOTUS

Attorneys for John Gilmore filed their reply brief to the US
Supreme Court in the case of Gilmore v. Gonzales. It's a difficult case to explain. Although it's a simple complaint, a lot of people seem to see it as a frivilous matter. Folks don't get all exercised about having to show ID to travel, and I suppose it's not that unreasonable in terms of safety, but I think it strikes at the very root of the seeds of fascism the White House has planted in America.
Describing the government's opposition brief as "one part legal argument, and nine parts obfuscation", Gilmore's attorneys write that the "question is whether the government can – without any plausible explanation – enforce against the general public a law, the text of which it insists must be kept secret."
That's the key. If we allow the government to make secret laws, even seemingly innocuous ones, it just sets the stage for further encroachments down the line. We're supposed to be a freaking democracy. Our government simply should not be making secret laws.

All the White House has to do to settle this case was to reveal the text of the law. Why should that be a problem? I think it very fishy that they're willing to take this to SCOTUS in order to avoid complying with Gilmore's more than reasonable request.

A copy of the brief in pdf is here from the complete index of filings.

In full disclosure, John is a friend of mine and I'd really like to see this case get more exposure. I'd appreciate any attention bloggers who read me could give the matter.
Bookmark and Share

4 Comments:

Blogger Kvatch said...

John Gilmore is a friend of yours? Really? That's very cool.

I didn't realize that Gilmore v. Gonzales had been appealed to the Supreme Court. The loss at the Circuit level was the last I'd heard of it.

This is an important case, but as you said, somewhat hard to explain.

11:31:00 AM  
Blogger Libby Spencer said...

Yeah, Gilmore is a very cool guy. I've known his partner Ann for years and I met him when I spent ten days in Mexico with them at an intensive journalist school he funded for Narco News.

11:42:00 AM  
Blogger No Blood for Hubris said...

I thought we had a system of laws. How was it so easy for them in a snap of their fingers to overturn habeas corpus?

I think you explained G v G in a very powerful way.

12:59:00 PM  
Blogger Libby Spencer said...

Thanks for the encouragement Hubris and I wish I knew how those thugs were able to kill not only Habe but destroy the rule of law in only six years.

1:27:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home