The Gitmo Prisoners’ Case:What the Supreme Court Really Did, And How the Press Blew the Story

Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 29 June 2006 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

[victim soul]

"This underscores the conclusion – missed in most of the press coverage, that a properly crafted statute passed by Congress, can restore the authority of President Bush to order military tribunals for all future defendants excepting (possibly) only Hamden himself. "

[sig226]

Got citations by any chance?

[Mia T]

It's not that you have a more clear mind. It's that you have a more honest one. I have no doubt that the sitting Justices all understood perfectly what a fair reading of the law required. It's just that they did not want to reach the result that law required. So, they went through some convoluted legal gymnastics to make their desired result appear to be supported by the current law.

That's really the greater sin, in my opinion. It's one thing to be too dumb to render the correct decision. It's far worse to know the correct decision, but choose to rule otherwise.--XJarhead

 

Agree, but an element of stupidity is involved, too.

True, Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer aren't too dumb to know the correct decision, but they ARE too dumb to realize that we, the people know it, too. (Or they are too dumb to understand the consequences of that fact).

To borrow from Mencken, a stupid demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he mistakes for idiots.

[KTM rider]

Grab yer pichforks everbody......let's roll !

this is why judicial appointments are so very critical..... and the leftists certainly seem to know it better than the right !

Al Qaeda knows it too !

[khnyny]

Yep.

You might like this from NRO. It's entitled "An Outrage".

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTYwOTYzMWY5NGZlNDM0MTg2MDc3ZjkxYmI4ZmY4NmU=

[Sandy]

Got citations by any chance?

Billybob's article is just a recap of the decision. I suggest you read the actual opinion if you really want to get a handle on it. Scalia's dissent covers the whole jurisdiction question in depth.

[Congressman Billybob]

The McCardle case is cited in the Hamdan decision at many points. The Schooner Peggy is, as I said, the first case ever decided by the Court, as a whole court. It was in 1805.

John / Billybob

[Sandy]

What they wound up passing was a bill that had 3 separate jurisdiction-stripping provisions.

Actually the bill had only one jurisdiction-stripping provision, 1005(e)(1). The other 2 provisions--(e)(2) and (e)(3)--*granted* new exclusive jurisdiction to the appeals court; there was no jurisdiction-stripping in those 2 sections.

[FreedomPoster]

It's about to make a big comeback, but few will be talking about it. We will take fewer prisoners.

[IrishRainy]

I believe that the Christian Science Monitor is liberal. The "Christian" part of their name is a misnomer, IMO.

[Bellows]

The "Christian" part of their name is a misnomer, IMO.

Why is that?

[MNJohnnie]

Either the "language" to which Scalia refers is written in invisible ink, or else someone has the Article/section wrong.

No the Author, unlike you, actually understands the Commander in Chief powers

[MNJohnnie]

I find I am agreeing with Ann Coulter when she says "What does a girl have to do to get an angry, club- and torch-wielding mob on its feet?"

[ThePythonicCow]

I have no doubt that the sitting Justices all understood perfectly what a fair reading of the law required.

Sure, they likely knew that. But they didn't believe that was decisive.

They neither believe they are subservient to any higher authority, be that God or the Constitution, nor do they even understand what that means.

They think their oath to uphold the Constitution means "... and cite lines from the Constitution supporting your position where possible."

Their final authority is neither God nor Law, but their own machinations, swayed as we all are at risk of being swayed, by the whims of fashion.

Note my signature, below.

[ThePythonicCow]

Don't go and mess it all up by adding the unnecessary stuff about pinning it on Roberts.

Well ... you did wave the red white flag in front of the bull a bit <grin>.

[ThePythonicCow]

But they did not want to obey it.

I wouldn't say they don't want to obey it. I'd say they don't know how to obey. They have lost touch with the fundamental ability of humans to respect a Higher Authority, which is essential to maintaining and preserving a free society.

They are Godless, and their church is the arena of public fashion. The propaganda of the main stream media is their scripture. They fancy that they are the Chief Opinion Decreers, and the main stream media allows them that delusion, so long as they remain obedient to the left's lies.

[sourcery]

No the Author, unlike you, actually understands the Commander in Chief powers

If there's any lack of understanding, you would be the one suffering therefrom. Neither the section of the article on which I was commenting, nor my comment, had anything whatsoever to do with the powers of the Commander in Chief.

For your enlightenment, the issue was whether Article II, section 2. had anything to say about the power of Congress (note: not the President/Commander in Chief) to deny the Federal courts from hearing the claims of enemy combatants at Gitmo. The matter was resolved by the admission on the part of the author of the article that he had misquoted Scalia with respect to which Article of the Constitution dealt with the matter. That was it, end of story.

[Congressman Billybob]

I did not "misquote from Justice Scalia." I copied and pasted directly from the Scalia opinion. There is a typo in the slip opinion, which will certainly be corrected in the printed version of the opinions.

It is Article III, Section 2 (not Article II, Section 2), which gives Congress the power to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts, except for the "original jurisdiction" of the federal courts. This is a power which the Supreme Court has recognized and followed, universally in the past.

This is why the majority in the Hamdan case went through about ten pages of a legal tap dance, to "explain" why the 2005 law from Congress did not oust its jurisdiction in the present case. Otherwise, the Court would have had to reverse all those prior cases. This way, the majority could pretend to be obeying the prior law, whereas Justices Scalia and Thomas pointed out that they were rejecting the prior law.

I should have caught the typo in the opinion, since everyone knows that Article I deals with powers of Congress, Article II deals with powers of the President, and Article III deals with powers of the courts.

John / Billybob

[MNJohnnie]

It nice you have feelings about what Article 2 means. Unfortunately Justice Scalia is what is known as an "expert witness". He is a Supreme Court Justice while you are merely some self appointed Know It All. His opinion carries legal weight in our system, your opinion is meaningless noise.

[sourcery]

It nice you have feelings about what Article 2 means.

You still completely misunderstand, don't you?

My point was simply that Article II, section 2 of the Constitution has nothing to do with the power of Congress to prevent the Federal courts from hearing cases. Congressman Billybob agreed with me, by admitting that he had misquoted Scalia, who had actually cited Article III, not Article II. Did you get that? That was the only point at issue. Nothing else. Now go away.