SCOUS


PDA






BigFatKen
April 3, 2006, 12:16 PM
A divided Supreme Court declined on Monday to decide whether President George W. Bush has the power in the war on terrorism to order American citizens captured in the United States held in military jails without any criminal charges or a trial.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20060403/ts_nm/security_padilla_dc_4

Note: 6-3 is a "divided Supreme Court" Roe vs. Wade(6-3) is "settled law".

If you enjoyed reading about "SCOUS" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
CAnnoneer
April 3, 2006, 12:18 PM
They declined to decide? Isn't that like refusing to do one's job? Sack them.

BigFatKen
April 3, 2006, 12:24 PM
Today, 11:18 AM #2
CAnnoneer
Senior Member
They declined to decide? Isn't that like refusing to do one's job? Sack them.

They decline ten (guess) times the cases they accept. They can only hear a certain number each year. Point is press calls it a "divided court"

Pebcac
April 3, 2006, 03:32 PM
Certiorari was denied because the case in question is now moot since Padilla has been transferred for trial in Florida.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/03/padilla.scotus/index.html

Al Norris
April 3, 2006, 03:34 PM
It is only a "divided" Court inasmuch as it wasn't unanimous.

Read the two opinions. Kennedy (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-533Kennedy.pdf) wrote to explain why they denied cert.

Ginsburg (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-533Ginsburg.pdf) wrote to explain why they should have taken the case.

This one of thoise rare times that I will agree with Ginsberg. If you study the reasoning, you might also agree. And no, the case is not moot.

ArmedBear
April 3, 2006, 04:29 PM
The Court can take up the case again at any time that Padilla is transferred out of criminal court.

The fact is that the Padilla has already received the remedy he sought, and that is the main reason that only 3 justices voted to take the case.

One interesting thing about the SCOTUS is that they try to see cases for what they are, as opposed to seeing them as we news junkies and media hounds see them.

I don't always care for that. I'd rather have more definitive decisions -- maybe. But maybe not. Be careful what you wish for.

Al Norris
April 3, 2006, 04:52 PM
On the one hand, we have what Kenedy wrote in the denial:In light of the previous changes in his custody status and the fact that nearly four years have passed since he first was detained, Padilla, it must be acknowledged, has a continuing concern that his status might be altered again. That concern, however, can be addressed if the necessity arises.
On the other hand we have what Ginsburg wrote:
Does the President have authority to imprison indefinitely a United States citizen arrested on United States soil distant from a zone of combat, based on an Executive declaration that the citizen was, at the time of his arrest, an “enemy combatant”? It is a question the Court heard, and should have decided, two years ago. Ibid. Nothing the Government has yet done purports to retract the assertion of Executive power Padilla protests.

Although the Government has recently lodged charges against Padilla in a civilian court, nothing prevents the Executive from returning to the road it earlier constructed and defended.
Cert denied. Padilla can now go to court... Or will he? What is to prevent the government from again applying the label "enemy combatant" and putting him back into prison? Nothing. He will have to file another Habeas Corpus suit and wait while it slowly winds it way back to the SCOTUS, at which point, the feds will release him back into civilian custody to stand his "interruppted" trial. Meanwhile, that Cert will again be denied, because its now "moot." And we can start the whole charade all over again.

Maybe some of you may think this is justice, but I sure don't.

Meanwhile, all throughout this, we get a new president. Hillary? How long will it take her to declare certain gun owners "enemies of the state" (another legally undefined term) and we can all run the gamut along with Padilla.

Think it can't happen? Ginsburg says as much in her dissent. For once the lady has it right.

DKSuddeth
April 3, 2006, 09:16 PM
The new name for this court should be the United States Supreme Chickens.

For 100 years we've been waiting for one branch of this government to actually rule by and for the constitution the way it was written and we still haven't seen it.

anyone wanna tell me it isn't time to water the tree with the blood of patriots and tyrants?

Kodiaz
April 3, 2006, 09:44 PM
Hey Dk check my sig line. Just call me one of the gardeners.

Michigander
April 4, 2006, 06:21 AM
I don't see this case coming up again in front of SCOTUS.

But now the government knows they can hold anyone unless and untill they appeal to the SCOTUS.

I really do not see how

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (emphasis mine)

does not apply to a US citizen.

If you enjoyed reading about "SCOUS" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!