Posted on 08/08/2005 5:45:04 PM PDT by COEXERJ145
WASHINGTON - Lawyers for a Guantanamo detainee asked the Supreme Court on Monday to consider blocking military tribunals for terror suspects, and overturn what they called an extreme ruling by high court nominee John Roberts.
Roberts was on a three-judge federal appeals court panel that last month ruled against Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who once was Osama bin Laden's driver.
Hamdan's attorneys said in their filing with the justices that the appeals court had rejected long-standing constitutional and international law.
"Its decision vests the president with the ability to circumvent the federal courts and time-tested limits on the executive. No decision, by any court, in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has gone this far," wrote Hamdan attorney Neal Katyal, a law professor at Georgetown University.
The Pentagon maintains it has the authority to hold military commissions, or tribunals, for terror suspects like Hamdan who were captured overseas and are now being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
A lower court judge ruled against the government, but Roberts and two other judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit disagreed. That opinion was written by Judge A. Raymond Randolph, who was named by the first President Bush.
That ruling was handed down shortly before Roberts was named to the Supreme Court, to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
O'Connor has been skeptical of government powers. In 2004, she wrote that "a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."
The appeals court said last month that the 1949 Geneva Conventions governing prisoners of war does not apply to al-Qaida and its members.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
not at all, each branch has co-equal powers. the SCOTUS cannot impeach a president.
"not at all, each branch has co-equal powers. the SCOTUS cannot impeach a president."
Maybe I worded that poorly. I was referring to (but not advocating) impeachment of the SCOTUS, not the president.
the congress doesn't have the stones to do that either.
"the congress doesn't have the stones to do that either."
Agreed, and for the record, I don't think they should in this case, this decision is exactly the constitutional issue that the SCOTUS was designed for. My bigger point was that nowhere in the constitution does the president have the power to ignore the SCOTUS. It's just not an option, there are options, but thats not one of them.
actually, this is exactly the type of issue the SCOTUS has no business ruling on. these individuals have no standing in the US civil court system.
Dear "Perfesser" Katyal,
Military tribunals ARE long-standing Constitutional and International LAW, ahole.
Where would the Scumbags on the SCOTUS get their authority to "hear" this "case." Don't do drugs and check the U.S. Constitution. IT'S NOT IN THERE!!!! SCOTUS needs to tell these bozos to go take a hike. THEY HAVE NO AUTHORITY.
He can impeach members of the SCOTUS
"actually, this is exactly the type of issue the SCOTUS has no business ruling on. these individuals have no standing in the US civil court system."
Well that's actually the question now isn't it.
If they have the authority to hear this case, why then for example couldn't some 9th circuit judge issue an arrest warrant for a US soldier who kills the enemy in the field of batle, for murder? why not extend US rights to the terrorist killed by a US soldier, and charge the soldier with murder? I know it sounds like a stupid example - but really, its not that far of a stretch.
Not at all. Is it trying to direct troop movements? Is it ordering an attack? No, it's doing absolutely nothing of the sort. It's getting involved in what are by definition, judicial matters.
If "executive powers" are whatever the President says they are, then we have no Constitution. It's that simple. That means there has to be a limit drawn. One can argue that SCOTUS is drawing it too tight, but to say it shouldn't be drawn at all is leaving the door open way too wide.
well indeed, see post #30. why can't a court extend the criminal code and start arresting US soldiers? is there no ruling that a court could dream up, that cannot be opposed? because if not, then we essentially have a judicial monarchy in this country.
"He can impeach members of the SCOTUS"
No he can't, that's a power or congress.
so you believe then that a US court could issue an arrest warrant for a US soldier who kills the enemy in the field of battle - or hell, even kills a civilian accidently, can a court issue a manslaughter arrest warrant for that?
well then what gives the president the power to order a military attack at all then? why isn't the war powers act subject to judicial review? if the president wants to launch an attack, should the ACLU be able to bring that decision to a court first to get their OK?
could the SCOTUS order all US troops be pulled from iraq? why not?
The stuff is REALLY going to hit the fan if Americans EVER figure out that the U.S. Constitution and The Bill of Rights belong to THEM and not the government. It's OUR job to tell the government what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights say. It's NOT the government's job to tell us.
Hamilton: Congress can and must impeach judges for usurping legislative powers
Whenever someone raises the possibility of getting control of the Supreme Court by moving to impeach lawless judges, something I've called for many times, it's pointed out that such a thing has never been done in America, that impeachment of judges under the Constitution is only authorized for personal misbehavior, not for exceeding their Contitutional powers, and therefore any attempt to impeach judges for their decisions would fail to get any political support. But now to my astonishment and gladness I find that Alexander Hamilton specifically addressed this very issue in the Federalist, arguing that impeachment and trial of judges by the Congress was the sure guarantee against judicial usurpation of the legislative function. From The Federalist no. 81: It may in the last place be observed that the supposed danger of judiciary encroachments on the legislative authority, which has been upon many occasions reiterated, is in reality a phantom. Particular misconstructions and contraventions of the will of the legislature may now and then happen; but they can never be so extensive as to amount to an inconvenience, or in any sensible degree to affect the order of the political system. This may be inferred with certainty from the general nature of the judicial power ... from its comparative weakness, and from its total incapacity to support its usurpations by force. And the inference is greatly fortified by the consideration of the important constitutional check, which the power of instituting impeachments, in one part of the legislative body, and of determining upon them in the other, would give to that body upon the members of the judicial department. This is alone a complete security. [Emphasis added.] There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body entrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption by degrading them from their stations. While this ought to remove all apprehensions on the subject, it affords at the same time a cogent argument for constituting the senate a court for the trial of impeachments.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a3_2_1s24.html
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.