Posted on 01/10/2006 4:14:05 AM PST by OXENinFLA
ALITO CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
Questioning Begins Today
Each of the eighteen senators on the Judiciary Cmte. will have 30 minutes to question Supreme Court nominee Samual Alito today during round one. Sen. Arlen Specter, as chairman, will begin, then they will alternate by party in order of individual seniority. Round two starts on Wednesday.
Never mind; my memory is coming back on that case. The way Cornyn was talking, it sounded like O'Connor was in the majority but I'm remembering she was not.
The squirrel is definitely nuts, without question smarter than Chuckie. And probably less nuts too.
I agree, another good montage from Drudge. The looks on the faces of Biden, Kennedy and Schumer are priceless! It's too bad the folks of the states these characters are from don't see them as the hypocrites they truly are.
My eyeballs burned out after reading a couple hundred subsequent comments and guesses as to who the responder would be.
If he posted the answer somewhere and someone knows who the perp (or perpette) will be, will you please ping me with the answer?
Leni
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 US 507 (2004)
That the government's detention of Hamdi violated his due process rights. Hamdi is a US citizen held as an enemy combatant. Lots of issues wrapped up in the case, and the "remedy" prescibed by the court includes somewhat indefinite forward-looking aspects, for example,
There remains the possibility that the standards we have articulated could be met by an appropriately authorized and properly constituted military tribunal. Indeed, it is notable that military regulations already provide for such process in related instances, dictating that tribunals be made available to determine the status of enemy detainees who assert prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Convention.
Scalia's dissent concisely illustrates some of the alternative venues and remedies, that is, military v. civilian; citizen v. non-citizen; trial for treason v. detention until hostilities are over. It's opening reads as follows:
Justice Scalia, with whom Justice Stevens joins, dissenting.Petitioner, a presumed American citizen, has been imprisoned without charge or hearing in the Norfolk and Charleston Naval Brigs for more than two years, on the allegation that he is an enemy combatant who bore arms against his country for the Taliban. His father claims to the contrary, that he is an inexperienced aid worker caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. This case brings into conflict the competing demands of national security and our citizens' constitutional right to personal liberty. Although I share the Court's evident unease as it seeks to reconcile the two, I do not agree with its resolution.
Where the Government accuses a citizen of waging war against it, our constitutional tradition has been to prosecute him in federal court for treason or some other crime. Where the exigencies of war prevent that, the Constitution's Suspension Clause, Art. I, §9, cl. 2, allows Congress to relax the usual protections temporarily. Absent suspension, however, the Executive's assertion of military exigency has not been thought sufficient to permit detention without charge. No one contends that the congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force, on which the Government relies to justify its actions here, is an implementation of the Suspension Clause. Accordingly, I would reverse the decision below.
Thanks for that; my memory is back now that I've realized Cornyn wasn't trying to portray O'Connor's view as the majority view. I had thought there was another case that I wasn't familiar with.
LOL on Durbin...............11 minutes, wasn't it?
;-)
You may want to recheck you memory.
Thanks muchos...as I expected...just more Demokrat spewage.
ONE REPUBLICAN taking on 18 PIN HEADS!!
G
I did not see that movie but I will take your word for it.
Great movie, did you see "Midnight Run" with Charles Grodin and DeNiro?
I had thought O'Connor felt enemy combatants should get a hearing before a military tribunal and was in the minority on that. None of the Justices ruled that way so I don't know which case I'm thinking about.
Frankly when that man speaks all activity around me stops. My husband finally witnessed what I've been saying about Cornyn for months and said he didn't want to check Schumer's seat after Cornyn was finished.
They were discussing the Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld case which is interesting to read
You're right. My mother is 77 yrs. old. She gets her news from the networks, but she is well read, and politically astute. She has kept up with current events and had an interest in politics all of her life. She can see right through the talking points of the talking heads, and I think that is the case with others like her who are interested in what is happening in the world.
The younger generations, who are interested, get information from different sources these days, and the MSM no longer holds a monopoly. Everyone gravitates to their own particular "trusted sources" to get a synopsis, if they haven't had opportunity to view or listen for themselves. Regardless, everyone has pretty much formed an opinion of the reliability of the various purveyors of information, and that is factored into what they read or hear.
He's fantastic; I've been told he's not going to run in '08 for the presidency and I don't know why not. We need to push him to do it, imo! My husband finally got to see him tonight too and now he knows what I've been talking about.
He has the hair for it :-)
I don't know either. But your first question asked about the enemy combatant case that Cornyn mentioned, where Scalia went one way and Scalia went another (BTW, Thomas went a third way - radically different from Scalia). That case is Hamdi.
Thanks for pointing it out; I had a good laugh when I clicked over to Drudge -- priceless is exactly correct!!!
I don't know either. But your first question asked about the enemy combatant case that Cornyn mentioned, where Scalia went one way and ScaliaO'Connor [DUH] went another (BTW, Thomas went a third way - radically different from Scalia). That case is Hamdi.
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.