Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

SCOUS

Discussion in 'Legal' started by BigFatKen, Apr 3, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. BigFatKen

    BigFatKen Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    Messages:
    902
    Location:
    Auburn, AL
  2. CAnnoneer

    CAnnoneer Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,838
    Location:
    Los Angeles County, CA
    They declined to decide? Isn't that like refusing to do one's job? Sack them.
     
  3. BigFatKen

    BigFatKen Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    Messages:
    902
    Location:
    Auburn, AL
    decline many

    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"
     
  4. Pebcac

    Pebcac Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Messages:
    323
    Location:
    Between a computer and a chair near Memphis, TN
  5. Al Norris

    Al Norris Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    570
    Location:
    Rupert, ID.
    It is only a "divided" Court inasmuch as it wasn't unanimous.

    Read the two opinions. Kennedy wrote to explain why they denied cert.

    Ginsburg 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.
     
  6. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    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.
     
  7. Al Norris

    Al Norris Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    570
    Location:
    Rupert, ID.
    On the one hand, we have what Kenedy wrote in the denial:
    On the other hand we have what Ginsburg wrote:
    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.
     
  8. DKSuddeth

    DKSuddeth Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2006
    Messages:
    777
    Location:
    Bedford, TX
    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?
     
  9. Kodiaz

    Kodiaz member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    680
    Location:
    Palm Beach County
    Hey Dk check my sig line. Just call me one of the gardeners.
     
  10. Michigander

    Michigander Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,301
    Location:
    Michigan
    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

    (emphasis mine)

    does not apply to a US citizen.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page