Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: tort_feasor

More Scalia

"To put this in context:The charge against the respondent in Councilman was the off-base possession and sale of marijuana while he was stationed in Fort Sill, Oklahoma, see id., at 739–740. The charge against the petitioner here is joining and actively abetting the murderous conspiracy that slaughtered thousands of innocent American civilians without warning on September 11, 2001. While Councilman held that the prosecution of the former charge involved “military necessities” counseling against our interference, the Court does not even ponder the same question for the latter charge."


28 posted on 06/29/2006 9:08:30 AM PDT by tort_feasor (FreeRepublic.com - Tommorrow's News, Today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]


To: tort_feasor

"Here, apparently for the first time in history, see Motion to Dismiss 6, a District Court enjoined ongoing military commission proceedings, which had been deemed “necessary” by the President “[t]o protect the United States and its citizens, and for the effective conduct of military operations and prevention of terrorist attacks.” Military Order of Nov. 13, 3 CFR §918(e). Such an order brings the Judicial Branch into direct conflict with the Executive in an area where the Executive’s competence is maximal and ours is virtually nonexistent. We should exercise our equitable discretion to avoid such conflict. Instead, the Court rushes headlong to meet it."


30 posted on 06/29/2006 9:12:58 AM PDT by tort_feasor (FreeRepublic.com - Tommorrow's News, Today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson