I want the 9th Circuit to have my baby!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Lopez and Morrison BOTH reduced the power of the commerce clause, but didn't come close to overturning Wickard.

As for this court being states' rights oriented, but not TOO states' rights orientated look at Bush v. Gore.

[Ned]

It REALLY would be nice if you provided links or full case names.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Add 'US' to both of them.

[Ned]

Here is a link to the Lopez case. It seems fully consistent with the current willing to 9th Cir.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZO.html

[Imran Siddiqui]

You don't get it! The court had a chance to overrule Wickard and all its precedent with Lopez and they didn't do it. They took the narrower ruling that non-commerical activity does fall under the Interstate Commerce Clause. They could also have said that intrastate activities cannot be governed by the ICC, but yet did not. They didn't even touch on that fact (that it was intrastate and not just non-commercial).

Why?

Cause Wickard is WAAAAY to deeply entrenched to be overruled now. Plenty of government law is based on it. The only justices I could see who would overrule is are Rhenquist, Scalia, and Thomas. O'Conner and Kennedy would undoubtably join the Liberal 4 on this issue.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The only justices I could see who would overrule is are Rhenquist, Scalia, and Thomas.

It's a drug case. I wouldn't even go that far.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's actually a good point, DD. It may go straight 9-0 to reverse.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
That's actually a good point, DD. It may go straight 9-0 to reverse.

One picks up a few things when one stays awake during class.

Anyway you people are wierd. The case involving Camp X-ray seems like it would be the most interesting case given that the issues surrounding it seem to be still up in the air unlike the drug case you people seem to be intent on talking to death.

[Imran Siddiqui]

True, but I'm going with the discussion here .

The Gitmo case could go for giving them trial. O'Conner may go with the Lefties. Then again, they may cite suspension of habeus for emergencies.... but this would be too long a detention for that, right?

[DinoDoc]

I'm thinking the case from the 2nd circuit (?) involving Padilla will be affirmed. That should have been obvious to the government from the start. However, I'm somewhat comfortable in assuming that SCOTUS will reverse the case from the 9th.

[Ramo]

I'll go out on a limb and say that both the 9th and 2nd Circuits' decisions on detention will be upheld. After all, we're talking about the same court that that ruled on Zadvydas v. Davis.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm thinking the case from the 2nd circuit (?) involving Padilla will be affirmed. That should have been obvious to the government from the start. However, I'm somewhat comfortable in assuming that SCOTUS will reverse the case from the 9th.

You think they may claim national emergency and the President's foriegn affairs powers on the 9th Circuit case? That is definetly a possibility. But at least 3 will dissent on that, I think. This isn't WW2, after all.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You think they may claim national emergency and the President's foriegn affairs powers on the 9th Circuit case? That is definetly a possibility.

I was centering on the foreign affairs powers of the President. I hadn't consideredthe national emergency angle.

re Zadvydas v. Davis: This seems to be dealing with different issues than the case at hand. I don't see the Court feeling themselves limited by it when dealing with the case from the 9th.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I hadn't consideredthe national emergency angle.

Yeah, I was thinking Korematsu, though the SCOTUS will NEVER actually cite the case as precedent, even though it is still good law .

[Ramo]

re Zadvydas v. Davis: This seems to be dealing with different issues than the case at hand. I don't see the Court feeling themselves limited by it when dealing with the case from the 9th.

Point is, this court has in the past argued against indefinite detention of aliens. The circumstances are certainly different (9/11 has happened, people were detained by the military, etc.), but I think there's a real possibility they'll uphold the 9th Circuit's decision.