
(CNN) - The latest five-to-four decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on the status of terror suspects at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba once again underscores the deeply divided nature of the court and the huge stakes in the presidential election.
The court broke up largely along the liberal-conservative makeup – with the traditional swing voter, Justice Anthony Kennedy, once again breaking the tie.
In the majority were the liberals – Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.
In the minority were Chief Justice John Roberts, and Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.
The next president of the United States probably will be in a position to nominate at least one and maybe more Justices. John McCain says he would nominate conservatives like Roberts and Alito; Barack Obama says he prefers liberals like Ginsburg and Breyer.
So just as there are stark differences between the two candidates on foreign and domestic policy, there are also stark differences on the future of the Supreme Court. And placing new justices on the court will have an impact for a lot more than just four or eight years. It’s something to think about during this political season.
The House of Representatives has voted to send an impeachment resolution against President Bush to committee – where it's likely to die.
Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced the 35 articles of impeachment this week. Most of the resolution focuses on the Iraq war but also charges the president with illegally detaining both U.S. citizens and foreign captives, condoning torture and mishandling the response to Hurricane Katrina.
But Congress doesn't want to hear it. They voted largely along party lines – 255 to 166 – to send the resolution to the House Judiciary Committee. This is exactly what happened to Kucinich's impeachment articles against Vice President Cheney last year. Congress sent that resolution to this same committee in November. So far, no action has been taken. Congress continues to refuse to exercise its constitutional responsibility of oversight of the executive branch of government.
To read more and contribute to the Cafferty File discussion click here
(CNN) – In an interview out Thursday, Hillary Clinton’s former senior strategist Mark Penn blames the New York senator's loss to Barack Obama not on underestimating her opponent, but on disagreements within the campaign on how to go after him and on squandering their campaign warchest far too early.
“I wanted to question the basic underpinning of his campaign,” Penn told GQ Magazine’s Lisa DePaulo. “One – that he didn’t have the usual experience of somebody running for president, and two – that the positions he took on Iraq - you know, that were revered by the press - didn’t really hold up when you look through his record in the Senate.”
Penn said former President Bill Clinton agreed with him and went after Obama on Iraq which resulted in his infamous “fairy tale” comments but that the rest of the campaign wanted to hold back because they felt Clinton’s refusal to apologize for her Senate vote to authorize the Iraq war made her vulnerable.
WATCH Bill Clinton's 'fairy tale' comments
“The reason that I would have gone after him early was precisely because I didn’t underestimate the power of a fresh new candidate who also had appeal to the African-American vote and the latte voters,” says Penn. “How do you stop something like that, right? You don’t stop something like that by being “warmer” [snorts]—by, you know, giving an interview on a personality show.”


Recent Comments