Free Republic

Regarding handling an objection to proceeding to consider a matter, objection has been voiced on quite a few occasions, it appears, and a cloture motion on the motion to proceed to consider while not common, is not unusual in a historic sense. In fact, that event recently occurred in the context of the asbestos bill. Examples in reverse cronological order ...

S.852: A bill to create a fair and efficient system to resolve claims of victims for bodily injury caused by asbestos exposure, and for other purposes.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00852:@@@X
Result: Agreed to, 98-1, with 1 not voting.

H.R.10: To enhance competition in the financial services industry by providing a prudential framework for the affiliation of banks, securities firms, and other financial service providers, and for other purposes.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HR00010:@@@X
Result: Agreed to, 93-0, with 7 not voting.

H.R.2646: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow tax-free expenditures from education individual retirement accounts for elementary and secondary school expenses, to increase the maximum annual amount of contributions to such accounts, and for other purposes.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HR02646:@@@X
Result: Agreed to, 74-24 with 2 not voting.

S.1936: A bill to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:SN01936:@@@X
Result: Agreed to, 65-34, with 1 not voting.

---

This last one is a doozy. The measure was NEVER brought to the floor for consideration of taking a vote. But see that 60 Senators can overcome a recalcitrant Senator, and also see that HOLDING THE FLOOR IS NOT NECESSARY in order to mount a successful "filibuster."

S.RES.227: An original resolution to authorize the use of additional funds for salaries and expenses of the Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater Development Corporation and Related Matters, and for other purposes.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:SE00227:@@@X
Result: Vote on the first cloture motion failed, 53-47
Vote on the second cloture motion failed, 53-47
Vote on the third cloture motion failed, 51-46
Vote on the fifth cloture motion failed, 53-47
Vote on the fourth cloture motion failed, 52-46
Vote on the sixth cloture motion failed, 51-46
Seventh and eighth cloture motions on the motion to proceed were withdrawn.

A bunch of articles -> http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/ongoing/investigation/

Tuesday, February 14, 2006
FBI probes how Bee got documents
The FBI is investigating the source of sealed court documents used by The Bee in stories about a federal probe into possible terrorist activity involving five Lodi Muslims.

Friday, February 10, 2006
A late surprise for Lodi defense
Shortly before the start of trials of Umer Hayat of Lodi and his son Hamid Hayat on terrorism-related charges, federal prosecutors dumped a huge load of tapes and a stack of FBI reports on defense attorneys.

Friday, September 23, 2005
Lodi terror charge added
Government prosecutors upped the ante in the Lodi terrorism case Thursday with a new charge against defendant Hamid Hayat, alleging that he provided material support to terrorists by attending a jihadist training camp in Pakistan.

Haven't checked the case, but likely charged with providing material support. ...

Nope - it was making false statements. The same thing Libby is charged with.

Details here -> http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/08/terror.probe/

Haven't checked the case, but likely charged with providing material support.

A little bit more on Milan Smith, the bio of him at his law firm.

MILAN D. SMITH, JR.

Mr. Smith became associated with the Los Angeles firm of O'Melveny & Myers in 1969, where he worked as a transactions specialist with emphasis on corporate, real estate, and secured financing law.

In 1972, Mr. Smith left O'Melveny & Myers to found the Firm that later became Smith Crane Robinson & Parker LLP, where he is the Managing Partner and continues to specialize in the areas previously noted as well as public entity representation. Mr. Smith is admitted to practice before the California Bar, the Bar of the District of Columbia, the Bar of the United States Supreme Court and the United States Tax Court.

Mr. Smith has had extensive experience in forming and advising business and public entities as well as negotiating and documenting a wide variety of complex business transactions, with special emphasis on real estate transactions and related environmental matters. Due to his extensive experience in the referenced practice areas, Mr. Smith has also been called as an expert witness in litigation concerning various corporate, real estate and transactional matters.

Mr. Smith has been an honoree of Marquis Who's Who in American Law, was a member of the Board of Directors of the Brigham Young University Alumni Association from 1982 to 1986 and of the Executive Committee of that Board from 1984 to 1986. He was the founding president of the Informed Voters League. From approximately 1974 through 1983, Mr. Smith served as Vice Chairman of Ettie Lee Homes for Youth.

In June 1984, California Governor George Deukmejian appointed Mr. Smith to the Governing Board of the Los Angeles State Building Authority, where Mr. Smith served as President until January 1992. Mr. Smith presently serves as the Authority's General Counsel.

In 1987, Governor Deukmejian appointed Mr. Smith to a term as a member of the Fair Employment and Housing Commission, of which Mr. Smith served as Vice Chairman. The Commission is primarily charged with enforcing and interpreting California laws prohibiting unlawful discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations and public services.

Mr. Smith serves as a member of the Deseret Trust Company of California and the Fraternity of Friends of the Music Center and is a member of the Board of Visitors, School of Religion, Claremont Graduate School. Mr. Smith is proficient in Spanish.

EDUCATION

Brigham Young University, BA, cum laude 1966
University of Chicago, Doctor of Law, 1969
National Honor Scholar (1966-1969)

http://www.scrplaw.com/attorneys.htm#smith

Appeals Court Nominee Has History With 9th Circuit

Justin Scheck - The Recorder
02-13-2006

... But the list of people who do know her is significant. Among them, former Secretary of State Warren Christopher (who put in a good word with Sen. Dianne Feinstein), 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (she clerked for both) and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (her current boss).

Despite friends like those, the former O'Melveny & Myers partner -- who has been general counsel to the California Resources Agency since 2004 -- has managed to remain under the mainstream's radar for years.

That's due more to her demeanor than her capabilities, say those who know her.

Kozinski on Thursday said he had expected Ikuta to be nominated for some time. "It's been in the works for six months or a year," he said. As a clerk, Kozinski said Ikuta -- known in Sacramento as a moderate conservative -- was thoughtful, careful and subdued.

Her mind, according to those who know her, is as fast as lightning, tackling subjects from environmental law to kung fu writing. Before going to law school Ikuta got a master's in journalism from Columbia University and was an editor of martial arts magazines.

"It is a great juxtaposition for someone who is as brilliant as she is, as studious and as academic as she can be," said Stanley Blumenfeld Jr., an O'Melveny partner.

Blumenfeld met Ikuta in law school and worked with her on the UCLA law review -- where her experience at magazines like Inside Kung Fu came in handy.

After getting their J.D.s from UCLA School of Law, Blumenfeld and Ikuta both clerked for the 9th Circuit and later spent years working together as co-chairs of O'Melveny's environmental practice, where Ikuta became best known for transactional and regulatory work.

"Sandra knows the substance of environmental law, both California and federal environmental law, in probably all of its manifestations," Blumenfeld said.

Those who know her say Ikuta is a deliberative decision-maker.

"I was far more likely to get excited about a case or to take an extreme view," Kozinski said. "She always wanted to rein me in."

"She would always think in shades of gray, while I tend to be more of a black-and-white kind of guy," he added.

Ninth Circuit Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw -- a President Clinton appointee and former O'Melveny partner who worked with Ikuta -- agreed. "She wouldn't take an ideological position," she said.

"I support her nomination," Wardlaw added, "and I look forward to working with her."

Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt said he knows little about Ikuta, but pointed out that in the past, it's been rare for a former Ninth Circuit clerk to become a judge.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1139565914268

He's correct that diminishing "the wall" between foreign intelligence and criminal prosecution does not depend on the Patriot Act.

AFAIK, Feingold is the only Senator still in opposition. I still haven't wrapped my brain around the details of his objections.

A little bit more on the two Smiths.

White House Looks at Two Names for 9th Circuit

Justin Scheck
The Recorder
11-09-2005

Last month, the Justice Department began background checks of the potential nominees: Los Angeles transactional attorney Milan Smith and Idaho state court Judge N. Randy Smith. "Hopefully, by the end of the year there'll be a nomination," said Milan Smith, 63, a founding partner at Smith Crane Robinson & Parker, a former member of the state Fair Employment and Housing Commission, and the brother of Gordon Smith, a Republican senator from Oregon.

Milan Smith attributes being considered to a convergence of experience with well-placed political connections.

"My name was put in, ironically, by both [Senators] Barbara Boxer and Orrin Hatch a number of years ago," he said.

The connection with Hatch -- the Republican U.S. senator from Utah -- is easy to understand, given that Milan Smith is active both in the Church of Latter Day Saints and in Mormon business ventures. The link to Boxer came via his brother.

"He and Barbara Boxer are very good friends, even though they don't see eye to eye on everything," Milan Smith said. A Boxer spokesman refused to comment.

After his brother introduced him to Boxer, Milan Smith explained, the Democratic senator learned the circumstances of Milan Smith's departure from the Fair Housing and Employment Committee in 1991.

He stepped down in protest after then-Gov. Pete Wilson vetoed a bill that would have given the commission power to award compensation to victims of sex harassment.

"I really felt for those people who'd been sexually harassed," he said. "Sure I'm a Republican, but I'm a Republican with a heart." ...

Like Milan Smith, Judge N. Randy Smith has a long record of legal and political experience.

Since he was appointed in late 1995 to an Idaho trial court -- where his current responsibilities include civil and criminal cases as well as administrative duties -- ethics rules have limited N. Randy Smith's role in politics.

But he used to be a GOP bigwig -- as chairman of Idaho's Republican Party.

Like Milan Smith, N. Randy Smith attended Brigham Young University as an undergraduate. The Idaho Smith got his law degree from BYU's J. Reuben Clark Law School in the 1970s, according to information that was posted on the Idaho State University's Web site, one of the schools where Smith has taught. ...

According to the same biography, Smith worked as a corporate lawyer for the agribusiness giant J.R. Simplot Company for several years until he went to work at Idaho-based Merrill & Merrill in 1982. He remained there until he was named to the bench.

His specialties at the firm, the biography states, included insurance defense, corporate and asbestos litigation, and probate and estate planning. ...

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1131457369606

I was watching Feingold earlier and trying to decide what he was up to. I believe he is to speak at 11. I suppose he will tell us why the Patriot Act is evil.

I didn't listen to him this morning. Must have been preoccupied with work or soemthing. I'll try to keep an ear on what he says, but would not be surprised if he backs down from his objection to even taking up debate.

I've never seen a cloture motion filed for the purpose of taking up debate. I wonder how many times this has happened?

91. 91 BoBo
Posted on February 14th, 2006 at 7:36 pm. About 'Alexander Bolton on Circuit Nominees'.

I am not really that impressed with Milan Smith. Basically, he got the nod because his brother is a senator from Oregon and he knows Barbara Boxer. It's sorta sad that Feinstein and Boxer have such a stranglehold on the 9th Circuit that the White House is reduced to nominating nonentities.

http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=2215#comment-123273

I thought the timing was humorous, in light of that homosexual cowboys movie being a subject of no small amount of public commentary. And in that same light, the resolution looks like an effort to rehabilitate the reputation of cowboys in general.

Pending nominees in the 9th Circuit:

Smith, Randy: Nominated on December 16.
Ikuta: Nominated on February 8.
Smith, Milan: Nominated on February 14.

Feb 8, 2006: Details regarding the Wallace and Ikuta nominations

I haven't done any research on Milan Smith. Anybody here have any input on that one? Confirmthem has no more than is posted here.

Regarding judicial nominations and other assorted Senate shenanigans ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1578990/posts

All sorts of goodies in there.

A follow-up to the "how many Gitmo cases are wrapped up in the Kyl-Graham/Levin dispute?" question.

I found a UPI article and posted an excerpt of it on a thread that is dedicated to the Senate's handling of the Gitmo habeas issue in general, as developing in the context of the Graham amendment that changed the pertinent jurisdictional statute. Same excerpt posted here ...

Court tackles new Gitmo detainee law

By PAMELA HESS AND SHAUN WATERMAN
UPI Security and Terrorism

WASHINGTON, Jan. 11 (UPI) -- The U.S. Federal Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., is soliciting opinions on whether a new law denying the Guantanamo prisoners the right to challenge their detention in federal court applies retroactively to all those in custody.

If the court decides the law does apply across the board, many lawsuits filed by detainees against the Bush administration using the centuries-old common law principle of habeas corpus would come to an end. ...

The Supreme Court sidestepped that question in a related decision handed down in 2004, but it too may be forced to rule on it in a separate Guantanamo case -- Hamdan v. Rumsfeld -- to be argued before it in March. ...

According to Graham's office, some 160 cases involving 300 Guantanamo prisoners had already been filed with the D.C. circuit when the act became law.

The administration is arguing that the law applies retroactively as well, and said last week it wants all federal courts to dismiss all the Guantanamo cases before them.

Congress, however, is less clear on the matter.

Graham, a former military lawyer, sides with the White House but left room for the courts to arrive at their own decision.

"Under no circumstance did I intend... that existing lawsuits filed by enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, would be statutorily preserved. Nor do I believe a reasonable reading of the statute would lead to that conclusion. The intent of the language ... is that courts will decide in accord with their own rules, procedures and precedents whether to proceed in pending cases," he stated last week.

http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060110-051639-8337r

This UPI article from last month oulines the scope of the jurisdiction battle that is the subject of the Kyl/Levin debate in the posts above.

Court tackles new Gitmo detainee law

By PAMELA HESS AND SHAUN WATERMAN
UPI Security and Terrorism

WASHINGTON, Jan. 11 (UPI) -- The U.S. Federal Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., is soliciting opinions on whether a new law denying the Guantanamo prisoners the right to challenge their detention in federal court applies retroactively to all those in custody.

If the court decides the law does apply across the board, many lawsuits filed by detainees against the Bush administration using the centuries-old common law principle of habeas corpus would come to an end. ...

The new law, dubbed the Detainee Treatment Act, was made part of the 2006 defense authorization act. It was also sponsored by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Az. It prohibits prisoners held at the jail on the U.S. enclave in Cuba from filing habeas corpus cases.

According to Graham's office, some 160 cases involving 300 Guantanamo prisoners had already been filed with the D.C. circuit when the act became law.

The administration is arguing that the law applies retroactively as well, and said last week it wants all federal courts to dismiss all the Guantanamo cases before them.

Congress, however, is less clear on the matter.

Graham, a former military lawyer, sides with the White House but left room for the courts to arrive at their own decision.

"Under no circumstance did I intend... that existing lawsuits filed by enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, would be statutorily preserved. Nor do I believe a reasonable reading of the statute would lead to that conclusion. The intent of the language ... is that courts will decide in accord with their own rules, procedures and precedents whether to proceed in pending cases," he stated last week.

http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060110-051639-8337r

The NSA surveillance can be lawful, yet outside of FISA's scope for granting warrants.

How?

Let me rephrase, ever so slightly.

The NSA surveillance can be lawful constitutional, yet outside of FISA's scope for granting warrants.

A few things that caught my eye in yesterday's record ...

The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated: ...

By Mr. FRIST:

S. 2283. A bill to establish a congressional commemorative medal for organ donors and their families; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

22 . INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

---

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in a few moments I will have a very brief statement about what went on with the vote on the asbestos bill, but for our colleagues, I wish to outline where we are going tonight and over the next several days.

Calendar No. 360, S. 2271, is the USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act. This bill addresses some of the concerns of Members on both sides of the aisle as it relates to the PATRIOT Act. I believe that we strongly support it and we are prepared to consider this measure next.

Therefore, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 2271, the USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Feingold, I object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I had hoped we would at least be able to proceed to that bill tonight. As our colleagues know, this bill is ready to go. It is an important bill. It is important for the safety and security of the American people. It is a bill we have worked on for a long period of time, and we believe there is overwhelming support for this bill. The consent I asked for was for the Senate to begin consideration of that legislation. We had the objection from the other side of the aisle that was expressed.

I now move to proceed to S. 2271. The motion to proceed is now pending and is debatable. We have been told that there will be an effort to filibuster the motion to proceed. Therefore, I now send a cloture motion to the desk and ask for its consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.

11 . USA PATRIOT ACT ADDITIONAL REAUTHORIZING AMENDMENTS

---

Mr. LEVIN. Last week, Senator KYL placed a statement in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD regarding the Graham-Levin amendment, which was enacted last year as section 1405 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and as section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, as included in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006. Senator KYL and Senator REID cosponsored the Graham-Levin amendment in the Senate.

Senator KYL argues that this provision was intended to retroactively strip the Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, of jurisdiction over pending cases. Senator KYL's statement attached a January 18, 2006, letter from Senator KYL and Senator GRAHAM to Attorney General Gonzales, which makes the same argument. ...

The other problem which I focused on last Thursday [November 10] with the first Graham amendment was that it would have stripped all the courts, including the Supreme Court, of jurisdiction over pending cases. What we have done in this amendment, we have said that the standards in the amendment will be applied in pending cases, but the amendment will not strip the courts of jurisdiction over those cases. For instance, the Supreme Court jurisdiction in Hamdan is not affected. ..... I cosponsored the Graham amendment with Senator Graham because I believe it is a significant improvement over the provision which the Senate approved last Thursday. ..... The direct review will provide for convictions by the military commissions, and because it would not strip courts of jurisdiction over these matters where they have taken jurisdiction, it does, again, apply the substantive law and assume that the courts would apply the substantive law if this amendment is agreed to. However, it does not strip the courts of jurisdiction.

Senator Graham took the floor again immediately after I concluded my explanation of what our new amendment accomplished. He did not disagree with my statement about the effect of the revised bill on pending cases anywhere in his remarks. Indeed, neither Senator Graham nor Senator Kyl said anything at that time to contest my very clear statement that the new amendment did not retroactively strip the courts of jurisdiction over pending cases.

When the Senate approved the Graham-Levin Amendment by a vote of 84 to 14 on November 15, 2005, I explained again at S12,802 that our amendment would not strip the courts of jurisdiction over pending cases:

The Graham-Levin-Kyl amendment would not apply the habeas prohibition in paragraph (1) to pending cases. So, although the amendment would change the substantive law applicable to pending cases, it would not strip the courts of jurisdiction to hear them. Under the Graham-Levin-Kyl amendment, the habeas prohibition would take effect on the date of enactment of the legislation. Thus, this prohibition would apply only to new habeas cases filed after the date of enactment. The approach in this amendment preserves comity between the judiciary and legislative branches. It avoids repeating the unfortunate precedent in Ex parte McCardle, in which Congress intervened to strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over a case which was pending before that Court.

Again, neither Senator Graham nor Senator Kyl offered a contrary interpretation of the Graham-Levin amendment at that time.

The bill then went to a House-Senate conference. At this time, the inapplicability of the jurisdiction-stripping provision to pending cases was so clear that the administration's allies in the House tried in vain to alter the language of the effective date provision to make the jurisdiction-stripping provision apply retroactively to pending cases, as it had in the original Graham amendment. I objected to this language, and it was rejected by the Senate conferees. ...

As a result, the language sought by the administration and its allies, which would have applied the jurisdiction-stripping provision to pending cases, was not included in the final version of the bill.

It was not until after we concluded the conference and the conference report passed the Senate on December 21, 2005, that Senator Kyl placed a colloquy in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD arguing that Section 1005 should be interpreted to retroactively strip the courts of jurisdiction over pending cases. At the same time, a number of other Senators placed statements in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD stating their belief that the provision would not strip the courts of jurisdiction over pending cases.

Those statements, coming as they did after the conclusion of the conference and final action on the bill in both the House and the Senate, carry no more weight as legislative history than the statement that Senator Kyl placed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD last week or any other after-the-fact statement in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. Both the contemporaneous legislative history and the language and structure of the Graham-Levin amendment itself demonstrate that this provision was not intended to, and did not, retroactively strip the Federal courts of jurisdiction over pending cases.

14 . DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION, 2006

Levin's statment relates to a pending case, I'm sure which case (or cases), but Hamdan may be one of them.

---

In other news, Al Gore did NOT invent GORE-TEX

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize the lifetime of accomplishments of Dr. Robert W. Gore, who was recently inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame. ...

In 1976, Bob Gore took the reigns as CEO of W.L. Gore & Associates. This same year, the company received its first order for GORE-TEX fabric, which was the first fabric that was both waterproof and breathable. Initially used to make rainwear, this groundbreaking fabric would revolutionize the clothing industry and forever change how people interacted with their environments.

16 . ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS -- (Senate - February 14, 2006)

---

SENATE RESOLUTION 371--DESIGNATING JULY 22, 2006 AS ``NATIONAL DAY OF THE AMERICAN COWBOY''

S. Res. 371

Whereas pioneering men and women, recognized as cowboys, helped establish the American West;

Whereas that cowboy spirit continues to infuse this country with its solid character, sound family values, and good common sense;

Whereas the cowboy embodies honesty, integrity, courage, compassion, respect, a strong work ethic, and patriotism;

Whereas the cowboy loves, lives off of, and depends on the land and its creatures, and is an excellent steward, protecting and enhancing the environment;

Whereas the cowboy continues to play a significant role in the culture and economy of the United States; ...

Whereas the cowboy is an American icon; ...

Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate--

(1) designates July 22, 2006, as ``National Day of the American Cowboy''; and

(2) encourages the people of the United States to observe the day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

26 . SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS -- (Senate - February 14, 2006)

Check out the list of proposed amendments to the asbestos bill! There must be 70 or 80 of them at 28 . AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED -- (Senate - February 14, 2006).

And finally, some more nomination in the judiciary, including one Circuit Court nominee.

THE JUDICIARY

JEROME A. HOLMES, OF OKLAHOMA, TO BE UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA, VICE SVEN E. HOLMES, RESIGNED.

MILAN D. SMITH, JR., OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, VICE A. WALLACE TASHIMA, RETIRED.

FRANK D. WHITNEY, OF NORTH CAROLINA, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA, VICE H. BRENT MCKNIGHT, DECEASED.

37 . NOMINATIONS -- (Senate - February 14, 2006)

Rebuttal to Kyl's colloquy of February 9, by Senator Levin on February 14. Levin says pending Gitmo cases, challenging the attachment of "enemy combatant" designation, are to proceed on the path established before Congress amended the jurisdiction statute handled in the Rasul case.

14 . DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION, 2006

But once congress gets the idea they can authorize something, they will also get the idea that they can later UNauthorize it.

Good point. Maybe better to have the Court handle the debate, instead of Congress. Naturally, they won't handle it until a case appears - I'm not suggesting that they get involved in advance.

At some point, the branches of government butt heads. It's the nature of our form of government.