Skip to comments.Supreme Court says government can move Jose Padilla to Florida to face charges
Posted on 01/04/2006 1:29:53 PM PST by new yorker 77
WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court orders transfer of Jose Padilla from military to civilian custody.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
Next week should be fun.
Now we can start treason proceedings against him. Maybe we can make it a Capital charge.
How can this be? Hotshot lawyers all over the place have been telling us this is illegal. LOL
It's a step
More grist for the Alito confirmation hearings.
Good news, I expect to hear the scums lawyers start talking plea bargain soon.
Hahahahaha. I know just what you mean. -- roll eyes --
The legal issues and posture are a bit more complex than "legal/illegal," FWIW.
A panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., refused last month to allow the transfer of Padilla from military custody in South Carolina to civilian custody, citing the government's use of one set of facts before the courts to justify Padilla's military detention without charges and another to persuade a grand jury in Miami to indict him on the terrorism-related charges.
In that appeals court decision, Judge J. Michael Luttig warned the administration that it risked its credibility with the courts by changing tactics in what could be interpreted as an effort to avoid judicial scrutiny.
Did Judge Napolitano weigh in yet?
The Judge isn't worth his paycheck; he's wrong about nearly everything. He must be related to someone at FNC; otherwise he'd be on the street.
A couple of judges have been on FNC telling us that surely the administration would lose this case, FWIW.
He's been more wrong than right for a long time. This ought to get him steaming.
His opinion differs from lib reasons.
I would compare his ruling in this case to Alito's rulings in favor of abortion rights groups in other cases.
They still are both solid conservatives.
Do you think they will really have the cajones to charge him w/ treason? I don't think so.
Given the similarity in appearence between Padillo and John Doe number two of OKC fame, I wonder what's really going on.
It seems to me this argument would only be valid if the two sets of facts were mutually contradictory
Were they? I don't see why they necessarily should be.
Which case? The request to remove Padilla to a civil authority (granted by the lower court, reversed by the appeals court, and granted by SCOTUS), or the underlying action, which is still pending on SCOTUS docket?
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.