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...
Quote from: lacoste on June 29, 2006, 10:02:32 AMThe 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.
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 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).