Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Military Tribunals for Enemy Combatants PWN3D BY SCOTUS!!!  (Read 1044 times)

@#$%, Fire, and Damnation.

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 544
  • We're a team.
    • View Profile
Re: Military Tribunals for Enemy Combatants PWN3D BY SCOTUS!!!
« Reply #10 on: June 29, 2006, 12:24:33 PM »



Just re-read Article III Section II of the Constitution:

...In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make...  
 


2Lacoste

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4260
  • Johan Santana for President
    • View Profile
Re: Military Tribunals for Enemy Combatants PWN3D BY SCOTUS!!!
« Reply #11 on: June 29, 2006, 12:44:39 PM »
The sad part is the mental gymnastics one has to go to in order to even find that SCOTUS has jurisdiction in this case.  DTA and Article III should've forbidden them from hearing this case at all.

I agree, but so goes many of the Court's decisions. In all fairness it isn't that big of a stretch. The DTA simply stated that the Court couldn't hear new cases concerning military tribunals. The Court then just decided that since Hamdan was appealing for a writ of habeus corpus that his case was pending. Whether or not that was the intention of Congress is highly debatable (I think its clear that Congress meant to keep SCOTUS from hearing any more cases regarding Bush's military tribunals), but the reasoning of the Court in hearing the case isn't that convuluted.


I don't believe DTA referenced "new" cases in any way, and as far as the intent of Congress, you know that the conservative jurists really won't care (as a strict constructionist, if DTA doesn't say "new cases" then it doesn't mean "new cases").  This is where Alito and Scalia would likely bump heads (though probably coming to the same conclusion regarding the meaning of statute): Alito is much more likely to use legislative history (and the perceived intention of Congress) than Scalia (see this terms U.S. v. Zedner in which the two duke it out over this idea).
Mets will take the NL Pennant.

Happy_Weasel

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 5547
  • Me and Gir, the happy weasel.
    • MSN Messenger - ominusdemon2@msn.com
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Military Tribunals for Enemy Combatants PWN3D BY SCOTUS!!!
« Reply #12 on: June 29, 2006, 01:30:13 PM »
Well, maybe God does exist.

Evolve

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 102
    • MSN Messenger - ekleveland@hotmail.com
    • AOL Instant Messenger - Kapuda
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Military Tribunals for Enemy Combatants PWN3D BY SCOTUS!!!
« Reply #13 on: June 29, 2006, 01:35:42 PM »

I don't believe DTA referenced "new" cases in any way, and as far as the intent of Congress, you know that the conservative jurists really won't care (as a strict constructionist, if DTA doesn't say "new cases" then it doesn't mean "new cases").  This is where Alito and Scalia would likely bump heads (though probably coming to the same conclusion regarding the meaning of statute): Alito is much more likely to use legislative history (and the perceived intention of Congress) than Scalia (see this terms U.S. v. Zedner in which the two duke it out over this idea).

Not explicitly, no. Section 1005(h)(2) states "REVIEW OF COMBATANT STATUS TRIBUNAL AND MILITARY COMMISSION DECISIONS- Paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (e) shall apply with respect to any claim whose review is governed by one of such paragraphs and that is pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.". The paragraphs it is referring to hear are the ones that limit the Court's jurisdiction over these cases. Basically, the Act is saying that any claim for reviewing combatant status (which is at the heart of any habeus corpus request or demands for PoW/Geneva rights) after the Act is passed can not be heard by the Court, hence my saying no new cases. The Court in this case, however, judged Hamdan to be pending before the Act was passed. Therefore, it had jurisdiction and therefore it could rule against the military tribunals and, I'm sure by no coincidence, against DTA restriction of judicial power.

philibusters

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1076
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Military Tribunals for Enemy Combatants PWN3D BY SCOTUS!!!
« Reply #14 on: June 29, 2006, 02:00:32 PM »
One of the things that really bothers me about Bush is how he has constantly worked to increase the power of the Executive branch at the expense of the two other branches.  I grant that power naturally fluctates, but Bush has tried to shield his actions from even criticism by the other branches by claiming national security concerns whenever he is attacked.  For that reason, I am happy the way this case turned out. 

Note the sophisciated answer (or not) I give after taking Con Law.  Proof that not all law students become technical machines after 1L.
2008 graduate of William and Mary Law School