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

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Will Hear Case on Detainees (Guantanamo)
NY Times ^ | June 29, 2007 | WILLIAM GLABERSON

Posted on 06/29/2007 2:48:03 PM PDT by neverdem

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 last
To: neverdem; AdmSmith; Berosus; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fred Nerks; ...
Thanks neverdem.
Experts on the Supreme Court said the justices so rarely grant such motions for reconsideration that the order itself was significant. They said it signaled that the justices had determined they needed to resolve a new politically and legally significant Guantanamo issue, after two earlier Supreme Court decisions that have been sweeping setbacks for the administration's detention policies.

41 posted on 06/30/2007 9:33:51 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Time heals all wounds, particularly when they're not yours. Profile updated June 28, 2007.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
"It might be because some of them want to overrule aspects of Hamdan. It might be they see the need to correct the way they see this developing in some lower"

Remember that Roberts had to recluse himself from the Hamdan case due to his prior involvement in the [Appellate?] stage of the case. I haven't been paying much attention as of late, so I was wondering if you happen to know if Roberts will be able to weigh in on this one? IMO, his reclusion from Hamdan is the only reason the plurality was the plurality. And the plurality, or majority, in that case willfully ignored so many facts and twisted their reasoning to such an incredible extent in Hamdan v Rumsfeld et. al., that, imo, that case and their finding seriously erodes the credibility of the Supreme Court, who are supposed to be above public opinion and, in particular, above the influence of insane and idiotic liberal movements. Perhaps, as you suggest, this is Roberts' attempt, as Chief Justice, to restore dignity and credibility to the Court. They need to do something! But then, this could be a move from the Left on the Court, in which case we are in an historic moment - the fall and disgrace of the US Supreme Court and the Judicial Branch of US governance.

42 posted on 07/01/2007 4:08:04 PM PDT by the anti-liberal (OUR schools are damaging OUR children)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
"Best they just shoot them and be done with it."

I'm wondering if that will be the natural outcome of Hamdan v Rumsfeld et. al. IOW, rather than put detainees into a legal system where our very own judiciary seems to be at war with our own President and military, and indeed, on the opposing side of the US in the WoT, adopt instead the simple solution: "take no prisoners."

43 posted on 07/01/2007 4:13:07 PM PDT by the anti-liberal (OUR schools are damaging OUR children)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: the anti-liberal
Justices make their own call on recusal, so who knows? My recollection is the only reason Roberts recused on Hamdan was he was on a lower court panel that handled that case. IMHO, he shouldn't have recused then.

I don't think he had anything to do with this one, so he shouldn't have to recuse even on that ground.

44 posted on 07/01/2007 4:34:33 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
"I don't think he had anything to do with this one, so he shouldn't have to recuse even on that ground."

That's what I hoped to hear - thanks.

This'll be worth watching. Popcorn!

45 posted on 07/01/2007 4:47:34 PM PDT by the anti-liberal (OUR schools are damaging OUR children)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
Takes just 4 justices to bring something before the Court. It takse 5 justices to prevail on a decision.

The usual senile old suspects and professional poisoners hauled this one in. No big thing.

46 posted on 07/01/2007 5:35:13 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Again, Ginzburg thinks she has a deal with the Islamofascists ~ that they will kill her last.

Boy has she got a foolin' comin' ~ did she ever stop to think that the plane that circled town was looking for the Supreme Court, not the Capitol Building or the White House.

These apostles of Sharia Law know their targets.

47 posted on 07/01/2007 5:38:44 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Not "wid leg irons" but "wid dey leg irons".

If yo' goin' ta'do DILECT, do it right.

48 posted on 07/01/2007 5:41:21 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Takes just 4 justices to bring something before the Court.

True, although my understanding is it takes 5 to grant reconsideration of a cert denial. That's what makes this one unusual. Still, you can't read anything into it because we don't know why they decided to change their minds.

The usual senile old suspects and professional poisoners hauled this one in.

Agreed!

49 posted on 07/01/2007 6:21:58 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

s’ahrite kimosabe


50 posted on 07/01/2007 6:39:00 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

I always appreciate it when you weigh in on this stuff.


51 posted on 07/01/2007 6:41:44 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RasterMaster

“A picture is worth a thousand words!”

Great pictures!! Thanks!


52 posted on 07/02/2007 12:04:18 AM PDT by Anita1 (Hunter for President in '08!! Huckabee for VP!! A Winning Ticket!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Anita1

53 posted on 07/02/2007 6:09:04 AM PDT by RasterMaster (Rudy, Romney & McCain = KENNEDY wing of the Republican Party - Duncan Hunter, President 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Thank you.

John / Billybob

54 posted on 07/02/2007 7:34:08 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob (Please promote Dr. Sowell's words, at Duke.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: KoRn
The supreme court has no Constitutional jurisdiction over the military and prisoners of war in military custody. Those powers are solely within the Executive branch. The supremes better re-read the Constution.
55 posted on 07/04/2007 8:59:45 AM PDT by Weeedley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 last

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.

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