Posted on 11/13/2007 1:06:08 PM PST by SmithL
Charleston, S.C. (AP) -- Fred Thompson has gotten a lot of mileage out of his movie and TV fame as he runs for the Republican presidential nomination. And on Tuesday, speaking at The Citadel military college, he made sure to mention one of his recent roles: president of the United States, in the movie "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee."
But that wasn't all good for someone campaigning in the South.
"Some people say I've got a little making up to do," he said. "The last role I played when I was in the movies — I played Ulysses S. Grant." That's the Northern Civil War general who went on to become president. But it could have been worse.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Not like Taney. He was legitimately acting under authority of the 1789 Judiciary Act where a Supreme Court Justice is authorized to issue writs of habeas corpus. He states that in Ex Parte Merryman, and I've quoted the section of the Judiciary Act for you above. Here is what Taney said in Ex Parte Merryman:
The application in this case for a writ of habeas corpus is made to me under the 14th section of the judiciary act of 1789 [1 Stat. 81], which renders effectual for the citizen the constitutional privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. That act gives to the courts of the United States, as well as to each justice of the supreme court, and to every district judge, power to grant writs of habeas corpus for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of commitment.
Maybe if I keep repeating the law to you enough times it will sink in. One can only hope.
I did read O'Connor's stay and quoted from it. I stated that she had done her action as a circuit justice. My point was that in an emergency, she took action without a call from the lower court. So did Taney, and he could act under the 1789 law, emergency or no emergency.
Again, Justice Douglas issues a stay. A temporary postponement. He did not issue a decision in the name of the entire court but halted a proceeding to allow the entire court to consider it.
I have no sympathy for the Rosenbergs. but Justice Douglas made a valid Supreme Court ruling though I disagree with his argument. If the Court had decided not to reconvene and address the issue Douglas raised, the issue could have stopped there.
Does this imply a change in your position? Earlier you were describing Taney's actions as a Supreme Court decision, and as such who was Lincoln supposed to appeal it to? But if it was, in fact, a Discrict Court decision then sure, it could have been appealed. So which is it now?
As I read the law in force back then this morning, I'm not sure Lincoln could have appealed Taney's Ex Parte Merryman ruling. If the whole Supreme Court could only hear appellate cases as you and the Constitution says, then the whole Supreme Court could not hear an appeal to Taney's perfectly legal action as a Supreme Court Justice ruling on habeas Corpus per the 1789 law. Taney's ruling stands, fully legal, unappealable.
Ex Parte Merryman was a district court decision.
No, it wasn't. If the 1789 law is in error, it might be, but it was not.
Well, maybe I overstated Ex Parte Merryman not being appealable. Lincoln could have appealed it to the full Supreme Court if he took the position that Taney’s legitimate Supreme Court Justice at chambers ruling represented the decision of an inferior tribunal.
And nobody, least of all me, is disputing he had that power. Not only did the Judiciary Act say so but the 1807 Bollman decision (made by the entire court and not just one justice) ruled that the a Supreme Court justice could issue a writ.
Maybe if I keep repeating the law to you enough times it will sink in. One can only hope.
Maybe is you stuck to the issue, whether Merryman was a Supreme Court case or a District Court case, you wouldn't have to.
did read O'Connor's stay and quoted from it. I stated that she had done her action as a circuit justice. My point was that in an emergency, she took action without a call from the lower court. So did Taney, and he could act under the 1789 law, emergency or no emergency.
No, you went further than that. When asked for examples of a single Justice issuing a decision on behalf of the entire Supreme Court you offer two examples where justices issued stays. In neither case could their actions be classified as court decisions. In both instances the stays were temporary and ordered only so another court, either a District Court or the Supreme Court, could consider the case. That is a far cry from a judicial decision, and perhaps you're unclear as to the difference?
I have no sympathy for the Rosenbergs. but Justice Douglas made a valid Supreme Court ruling though I disagree with his argument.
He did not make a Supreme Court ruling. He issued a stay so that the entire court could consider the matter. The court issued the ruling, not Justice Douglas. He just delayed matters until the entire court could rule on it. If Justice Douglas had the authority to issue a ruling in the name of the entire court, why did the entire court have to rule on it?
As I read the law in force back then this morning, I'm not sure Lincoln could have appealed Taney's Ex Parte Merryman ruling. If the whole Supreme Court could only hear appellate cases as you and the Constitution says, then the whole Supreme Court could not hear an appeal to Taney's perfectly legal action as a Supreme Court Justice ruling on habeas Corpus per the 1789 law. Taney's ruling stands, fully legal, unappealable.
Perhaps because you're reading the law, and the Constitution wrong? The Constitution says that the Supreme Court will have original jurisdiction over matters involving foreign representatives or where states are involved. The Merryman matter involved neither of those, it was an entirely federal matter - U.S. Army, the President, and an individual. Maryland wasn't involved. So the Supreme Court only had appellate jurisdiction. So Taney could not issue a decision for the court, the matter had no business being before the court to begin with. The matter belonged in district court, and that decision could be appealed to the Supreme Court. So you were right by accident. Lincoln could have appealed the Taney decision from the district court. He did not. We can argue the whys of that at some other time.
No, it wasn't. If the 1789 law is in error, it might be, but it was not.
It is not the Judiciary act or the Constitution that is in error. It's you.
Now you want it both ways. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. There is no legal appeal from their decision. If Taney did, in fact, issue a judicial decision for the entire court all by his lonesome then that should have been the end of it. Ex Parte Milligan, Roe v. Wade, Bush v. Gore, none of those could be appealed once the Supreme Court had ruled. Why Ex Parte Merryman?
From Ex Parte Milligan:
The decision that the individual shall be imprisoned must always precede the application for a writ of habeas corpus, and this writ must always be for the purpose of revising that decision, and therefore appellate in its nature.
And yet again, we are not talking about the issuing of a writ of habeas corpus and whether a Supreme Court justice can issue one. Taney could. We're talking about whether or not Ex Parte Merryman is a Supreme Court decision, and if a single Justice can issue a decision for the entire court. You insist that it is, and I keep pointing out how it can't be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.