Hey...activist judges really ARE a threat

[Sava]

AFAIK, Slavery had ample precedent.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

[contrarian mode]

AFAIK, Infanticide had ample precedent.

[/contrarian mode]

Note: I am pro-choice.

[Mr. Harley]

Umm, Ogie those Civil War precedents actually turned out to overrule the President's capability to lock US Citizens without Habeas Corpus. Outside the direct area of conflict even Lincoln's new Surpreme Court (he got to appoint several new judges) overruled him, but not before the Copperhead Clement L. Vallandigham was tried in Ohio and banished by Lincoln to the South (find me banishment in the Constitution).

Now the President can suspend Habeas Corpus in the case of rebellion. Say it very slowly, and very carefully. Rebellion. Now read ex Parte Milligan. I am tired of people who don't know their Civil War history claiming Lincoln justifies Bush's actions.

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0071_0002_ZS.html

This is a lousy decision, and will hopefully be overturned as per the more recent SCOTUS decisions. Remember who supports the idea of trying him (and permitting a writ of Habeas Corpus to be served), with the specific example treason (which includes the Death Penalty in the Constitution no less) - Stevens and Scalia! However, the 4th Circuit may be banking on a new court, and the justice writing this is in the running for one of the new SCOTUS judges - maybe just maybe the bastard is using his position to grandstand?

[Drake Tungsten]

This is a lousy decision, and will hopefully be overturned as per the more recent SCOTUS decisions.

Why would SCOTUS overturn a decision based on the precedent they themselves set with Hamdi?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
It is not an arrest, not in the relm of crimminal law, it is a capture of a combatant under the law of war, the same law as on the battlefield.

Sure, except when they are innocent.

You know, like has already happened several times, including when the UK demanded we return their citizens that we locked up without a fair trial.

This enemy combatant crap is immoral and violates the Geneva Conventions.



Nice slimy lawyer/weaselspeak though.

[Ted Striker]

.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by GePap
That is why I think the anglo-saxon system of law is a bit bent. How can one seriously compare a situation under which Congress had declared war, or one in which the nation was facing clear insurrection, to the amorphous and opaque "war on terror"?

1. Because congress passed a war powers resolution for said conflict (war on terror).
2. A state of war exist when holtilities a commneced without without a resolution by congress, the declaration of war or war powers authoriztion is not necessary for a state of war to exist, what they do is add some powers to the excutive to wage war, but he already has some war waging powers without the declarations/authorization.
The rsolution after 9/11 was very similar to the resotuion in Dec 1941, Niether created a state of war, both recognized that a state of war has existed since the time of the enemy attack. Both authorized additional war powers to the executive.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It was in Florida, not far from where I used to live, interestingly enough. The American in question turned himself in as soon has he hit the beach and alerted authorities to the presence of the other sabetuers. In recognition of his service to the Republic, the Feds prompty executed him.

I was thinking of the Long Island case, but Quinn is another example.

[Mr. Harley]

Drake - the 4th circuit decision flies in the face of Hamdi. Hamdi states they have to get around to Habeus corpus, the 4th circuit say they don't, period. Scalia and Stevens were very irritated at their fellow justices for waffling on Hamdi, which is why I am hopeful the jerk who is grandstanding on the 4th circuit DOES NOT get nominated. Even with two new justices appointed by Bush I can hope at most one will want to go with this abuse of federal power - Thomas almost understands the point that you cannot have your cake and eat it, while Scalia and Stevens have a clear understanding, IMHO, about the implications of this.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Get a shave, man.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Drake - the 4th circuit decision flies in the face of Hamdi. Hamdi states they have to get around to Habeus corpus, the 4th circuit say they don't, period. Scalia and Stevens were very irritated at their fellow justices for waffling on Hamdi, which is why I am hopeful the jerk who is grandstanding on the 4th circuit DOES NOT get nominated. Even with two new justices appointed by Bush I can hope at most one will want to go with this abuse of federal power - Thomas almost understands the point that you cannot have your cake and eat it, while Scalia and Stevens have a clear understanding, IMHO, about the implications of this.

Haven't read the case, but if they don't allow a habeus hearing on his status, it definetly flys in the face of Hamdi, no question about it. There is, as has been mentioned by others on the thread, concerns that Luttig is ruling contrary in order to impress the President to get himself nominated for O'Connor's sport.

[Zkribbler]

On a more bizarre note: Governor Schwartenegger just vetoed a gay marriage bill. His reasoning is that this issue is the proper provence of the judiciary.

Danged activist Legislatures! Don't they know it's the judges' duty to write laws?!

[Ben Kenobi]

Yeah, I'm glad he vetoed that bill, when the majority of Californians voted in favour of a bill to keep marriage between one man and one woman. What ever happened to parliaments that respected the will of the people?

[Zkribbler]

What ever happened to people who respected the Equal Protection Clause?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Now the President can suspend Habeas Corpus in the case of rebellion. Say it very slowly, and very carefully. Rebellion. Now read ex Parte Milligan. I am tired of people who don't know their Civil War history claiming Lincoln justifies Bush's actions.

Oh Taney you had no idea how right you were.