The big deal is that this seems to be a recurring problem with you, capitan. Not only did you do this with Hamdi, but you also did it with the Prize Cases (presenting an argument as if it were the decision), Bollman (presenting the dissent as if it were the decision), and this latest case that NC pointed out. That's a a pretty bad track record, especially considering that the "decision" part of the case is easily found. It's the one that usually starts with "Justice So-and-so delivered the opinion of the court" and ends with something to the effect of "so held."
By my nolu chan #1299 and nolu chan #1366, and nolu chan #810, I provided a detailed demonstration of the earlier fabrications. For an earlier comment by 4ConservativeJustices see 4ConservativeJustices #652 Below is a brief review.
See [capitan_refugio #1462 to GOPcapitalist] Yes, my statement that it was from the Hamdi "decision" was in error. It was from the Hamdi "documentation" on Findlaw.com and I mistook it for the decision or the dissent. Big deal.
First, the reactions of three other Freepers, lentulusgracchus, Gianni and GOPcapitalist to the antics of capitan_refugio.
[lentulusgracchus #1422 to GOPcapitalist] "Simply put, it would seem that you are intentionally perpetrating a fraud and hoping that nobody will double check your work to catch it. I pinged him and asked for an explanation way back up the thread, but he blew me off and just kept posting. What the hell kind of deal is that? Now, his attention having been called to this stuff three times previously (nolu chan, 4ConservativeJustices, and me), he does it again. This sucks."
[Gianni #1501] Once might be an honest mistake. Twice? Maybe I could believe that. Thrice, and response of 'big deal' - outrageous and dishonest.
[GOPcapitalist #1465] The big deal is that this seems to be a recurring problem with you, capitan. Not only did you do this with Hamdi, but you also did it with the Prize Cases (presenting an argument as if it were the decision), Bollman (presenting the dissent as if it were the decision), and this latest case that NC pointed out. That's a pretty bad track record, especially considering that the "decision" part of the case is easily found. It's the one that usually starts with "Justice So-and-so delivered the opinion of the court" and ends with something to the effect of "so held."
1. QUOTE ALLEGEDLY FROM FOOTNOTE IN HAMDI V. RUMSFELD.
It is not possible to look at the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari and mistake it for a Decision of the United States Supreme Court. One look at the pictures in nolu chan #1402 are all the proof that is needed. It looks nothing like any Supreme Court decision on FINDLAW (or elsewhere). As is usual, when capitan pulls this stunt, he did not provide any link for his bogus source.
capitan_refugio #1370 attributed the quote to a "Hamdi footnote." It has thus far been admitted, in Clintonian fashion, that it was not from Hamdi. My nolu chan #1402 provides a jpeg of the material quoted by capitan_refugio. It is most definitely not a footnote. Capitan not only claims to have mistaken the Petition for a Writ of Cert for a Supreme Court Decision, he mistook double-spaced text spanning the last 9 lines of text on page 24 and the first 10 lines on page 25 as a footnote. That is possible only if you believe in Clintonian fairy tales.
FINDLAW link to PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERT (PDF File)
Hamdi decision, regular FINDLAW HTML version
Hamdi decision, Printer-friendly FINDLAW HTML version
FINDLAW does not provide decisions in PDF format, they are in HTML. The decisions provided on FINDLAW are not double-spaced.
The header of the court decision looks like this. It does not resemble a petition for writ of cert. JPEG of Petition for Writ HERE.
As GOPcapitalist noted, Supreme Court decisions contain an identified holding. In Hamdi it looks like this. There is no remote equivalent in a Petition for a Writ.
Held: The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded.Justice O'Connor, joined by The Chief Justice, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Breyer, concluded that although Congress authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances alleged in this case, due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker. Pp. 14-15.
Justice Souter, joined by Justice Ginsburg, concluded that Hamdi's detention is unauthorized, but joined with the plurality to conclude that on remand Hamdi should have a meaningful opportunity to offer evidence that he is not an enemy combatant. Pp. 2-3, 15.
O'Connor, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Kennedy and Breyer, JJ., joined. Souter, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, dissenting in part, and concurring in the judgment, in which Ginsburg, J., joined. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, J., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
From the late, great, deleted thread, "Confederate Constitution to be unveiled for holiday," which was pulled 8/17/2004 at 5:36:23 CDT.
Link to post, but Thread deleted
Here is our same capitan_refugio quoting at length from the actual court decision in Hamdi about six weeks ago. He knew perfectly well what the court decision looked like then.
To: GOPcapitalistI took the time to actually wade through the opinion of the plurality and the dissents. I found Scalia's and Thomas's dissents very interesting reading. Scalia was very unhappy about the decision, and it showed in his sarcasm. With that said, there is nothing in the Hamdi decision or the dissents which reflect negatively on Lincoln.
Lincoln is only mentioned by name three times, all in Scalia's dissent. In the Scalia discussion, none of his comments regarding the suspension clause are anything but equivocal. And that is not suprising, because the case is not about Lincoln, or the Suspension Clause. It is about the rights of a citizen and due process. Several places in the decision and the dissent the point is made that no one claims to have suspended the writ.
Scalia wrote: "During the Civil War, Congress passed its first Act authorizing Executive suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, see Act of Mar. 3, 1863, 12 Stat. 755, to the relief of those many who thought President Lincoln’s unauthorized proclamations of suspension (e.g., Proclamation No. 1, 13 Stat. 730 (1862)) unconstitutional. Later Presidential proclamations of suspension relied upon the congressional authorization, e.g., Proclamation No. 7, 13 Stat. 734 (1863)."
[Extensive quote continued]
3,174 posted on 08/02/2004 2:57:52 AM CDT by capitan_refugio
2. The BOLLMAN case.
GOPcapitalist noted that regarding Bollman a dissent was presented as the opinion of the court. Also, regarding Bollman, capitan at capitan_refugio #237 argued that "Bollman was not about habeas corpus...." In American jurisprudence, it is the seminal case about habeas corpus. Eric M. Freedman in Habeas Corpus, Rethinking the Great Writ of Liberty, devotes his chapters 3, 4, and 5 exclusively to Ex Parte Bollman.
3. The PRIZE CASES.
In capitan_refugio #649, capitan purported to quote from the Opinion of the Supreme Court in The Prize Cases. Capitan continued, in his words, "The Supreme Court finds: (1) The rebellion is an insurrection and not a war betwenn countries, (2) The "so-called blockade" was not a blockade under international law, and (3) Closing the ports was a valid exercise of executive authority."
In this case capitan quoted from the recap of the argument of one of the lawyers, Mr. Carlisle, and presented it as the opinion of the court. All of capitan's purported "findings" of the court were the reverse of the actual findings of the court.
See 4ConservativeJustices #652 and nolu chan #810.
4. LEMMON V. THE PEOPLE.
When speaking about Lemmon v. The People, at capitan_refugio #386, capitan regaled us with this mush about a case that never went to the Supreme Court: "Lemmon v the People was a case which foreshadowed Dred Scott. The Taney Court overturned a New York State statute which immediately freed slaves brought into the state. The decision guaranteed "sojourn and transit" and transit rights to slave-owners through free states. It did not address, to my knowledge, the issue of residence. Every stated position about the outcome of the case is wrong. Lemmon was decided by the New York State Court of Appeals in 1860, about 4 years after the U.S. Supreme Court decided Scott v. Sandford.
5. SCOTT V. SANDFORD.
In capitan_refugio #384 capitan purported three quotes to be about the U.S. Supreme Court case of Scott v. Sandford which were actually about the Missouri case of Scott v. Emerson. Two of the quotes were from Fehrenbacher's Chapter 10 entitled "Versus Emerson." The chapter titles appear at the top of pages through the chapter. See nolu chan #389.
6. MITCHELL V. HARMONY
capitan_refugio #1279, of 9/16/2004 at 11:39pm CDT shows, in reference to Mitchell vs. Harmony, "I saw the case referenced several times, but I have not taken time to look it up yet...."
nolu chan #1299, shows that capitan_refugio #1279 provided a quote from Hamdi which had absolutely nothing to do with the comments in Mitchell regarding the 2nd and 3rd objections. This erroneous response resulted from capitan_refugio once again demonstrating his expertise about a court decision he had not read.
capitan_refugio #1335, of 9/17/2004 at 11:30am CDT shows the dismissal of Mitchell with the comment "you cite a pre-war case about the Mexican-American War, which isn't at all analogous."
capitan_refugio #1370, of 9/18/2004 shows that capitan had still not read the decision in Mitchell vs. Harmony. "I have not read Mitchell, but the description in the Hamdi footnote is that the plantiff was a US citizen." Of course, we now know the description is not found in the Hamdi decision and is not found as a footnote anywhere.
Undaunted at having not read the decision, capitan_refugio #1492 to GOPcapitalist on 9/19/2004: "You still don't have the slightest understanding of Hamdi, outside of your's and a few other's odd constructions of its dicta."
And, of course, there was the eloquence of capitan_refugio #1488 which is no longer there, having been removed by the admin moderator.