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 ...
"No he's not. It's been done before, and nothing came of it.
Andrew Jackson."
Assuming you are referring to the case of Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia, please tell me how Andrew Jackson ignored the ruling.
"No he's not. It's been done before, and nothing came of it.
Andrew Jackson."
Pardon me, that should be Worcester v. Georgia, not Cherokee Nation v. Georgia. Related cases but it was in the former that Jackson said "the decision of the supreme court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate."
Which I assume is what you are referring to.
Nope, that was a circular joke.
You said earlier in this thread (#7) that "settled law" should mean nothing to the Right, that we should only look to the Constitution itself. Quoting an FDR-era SCOTUS ruling is hardly the same as quoting the Constitution.
I take it that you have nothing to add. If you had something to add you would have added the constitutional language giving the judiciary war powers. Since only Congress and the Executive are mentioned in the same sentence with war, I understand your dilemna.
More circular logic. You're the one who's insisting that this is a case of the judiciary exercising war powers. I've already pointed out to you that this is in reality a case of the executive branch exercising judiciary powers, and the judiciary branch holding the executive to the law.
Having "war powers" doesn't mean you don't have to obey the law when exercising those powers. If you disagree, feel free to point to the constitutional provision that supports you on that.
Here's your problem. You disagree with the Appeals Court and the SCOTUS in Quirin. Thats fine, but the circular logic thing is tiresome. I've posted the relevant section of Quirin which cites the Constitution. I'd be happy to post tha three judge panels opinion if you're having trouble finding it.
You, on the other hand, have posted nothing supporting your opinion which conflcits with the Appeals Court and Quirin. Until you do, you're blowing in the wind.
No, nothing in the section you quoted cites the Constitution. And not even Quirin corroborates your sweeping claim that the President in the exercise of his war powers is not subject to judicial review at all. To say that he's not subject to judicial review is to say that he's not subject to the law. And you will find nothing in the Constitution which states something so utterly un-American.
My mistake but a minor one. Your argument is with the appeals court decision. They cite to Quirin and Quirin cites the Constitution. Your move.
And not even Quirin corroborates your sweeping claim that the President in the exercise of his war powers is not subject to judicial review at all.
Now you're making it up as you go. I never said anything remotely likely that.
To say that he's not subject to judicial review is to say that he's not subject to the law. And you will find nothing in the Constitution which states something so utterly un-American.
OK Inquest, you have one post to quote me asserting that. If you can't do it, and you can't, then I'll figure you're having a bad day. It happens.
Now you're making it up as you go. I never said anything remotely likely that.
No, of course not. All you did was claim that the judiciary itself is exercising "war powers" whenever it reviews the President's actions for legality. But perhaps you'll forgive me if I don't see the subtle difference between that and what I posted above.
Forgive you for lying? Nope. No forgiveness for you inquest. When you attribute words to somebody that has never spoken them to try to make a point that, in reality, nobody gives a crap about, you are sliding into nutsville.
Where do they get the money for these suits?
I wasn't lying. The most you could claim is that you were making a highly ambiguous, incoherent point, and that I failed to read your mind.
a point that, in reality, nobody gives a crap about
Obviously you do, otherwise you wouldn't have been going at it with me on this thread. When SCOTUS fails to give you the decision you want, you won't be so blase about it.
I don't think there are many down there who are citizens of the USA.
Certainly you were. Very little I say is ambiguous, I say what I mean and I mean what I say. You took liberty with the truth by making a false assertion and then using that false assertion as evidence of my "unAmerican" views.
My standard reply to such crap is to tell that person to kiss my American ass. Consider yourself the recipient of the standard reply. I'm done being civil with you.
In the meantime, I'm glad that you're apparently now not contesting the fact that presidential wartime conduct can be subject to judicial review. He's subject to the law at all times, and nothing in the Constitution says that the courts don't have cognizance of the law when it pertains to his conduct.
LOL, you really should seek help.
Nice lie.
The fact remains that the judiciary has jurisdiction to act here, whether you approve or not. If you have anything further to say in regard to that, have at it. Otherwise, you're just trying to bluff a bad hand.
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.