[philman_36]

Scalia dissent -
By spurious reliance on Braden the Court evades explaining why stare decisis can be disregarded, and why Eisentrager was wrong. Normally, we consider the interests of those who have relied on our decisions. Today, the Court springs a trap on the Executive, subjecting Guantanamo Bay to the oversight of the federal courts even though it has never before been thought to be within their jurisdiction–and thus making it a foolish place to have housed alien wartime detainees.

Was the spurious reliance on Ankeny by Malia another instance where stare decisis was disregarded?

[philman_36]

...and why Eisentrager was wrong.
And Malihi sure didn't explain why Minor was wrong either.

[philman_36]

Shoot! Was the spurious reliance on Ankeny by Malia Malihi...
Scalia - Malia
I should drink more coffee before I get here.
At least I got it right the next time I used it.

[patlin]

I haven't read Ankeny for quite a while; but if memory recalls correctly the judge never actually ruled on obama’s birth status in the actual decision. It was an after the fact statement of the judge attached after the holding was concluded thus I can not see where stare decisis could even be claimed. I don't know what you call it but whatever it is, it is corrupt to the core. However, the fact that Minor was brought in as correct precedent for A2 citizenship, then yes, the judge did disregard stare decisis.

Does “gulag” strike a cord? One doesn't throw a frog into a pot of boiling water, they place it in it when the water is still cool. We are the frogs, the courts are the water & the media controls the tempurature so the frogs don't jump out before they are cooked.