"The Supremes Have Made Their Decision, Now Let Them Enforce It," Says Senate

[Ramo]

Of course, the issue really isn't opposing the Supreme Court, but the fact that Republicans in this gov't hate fundamental tenants of a free society like habeas corpus.

[Egbert]

In a democracy it is the job of the court to apply the law. It is for parliament to make the laws in accordance with a constitution. Of course, the courts may rule on the constitutionality of any law passed by parliament. A parliament may pass further laws if it disagrees with the courts interpretation of existing law.

The US Senate and the US courts seem to be doing just that. I don't see a problem with the lawmaking process in the US.

(Whether or not these particular laws relating to the Gitmo detainees is good or bad is a separate issue).

[Sikander]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
So they have two options, so far: changing the Constitution or changing the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is the supreme arbiter of the Constitutionality of legislation in the United States. The legislature isn't going to get around that by bombarding the SC with laws whose unconstitutionality based on recent precedent is obvious.

It really depends on whether the Supremes in their previous ruling relied on an interpretation of the law or the constitution. A ruling based on the law can be effectively rebuffed by a change in the law, while one based on the constitution won't be affected by a new law.

[KrazyHorse]

I was pretty certain that the issues involved were Constitutional. I know of no simple law which would force the courts to grant hearings into their status.

I read the majority opinion when it first came down, and it seems to me that I recall it being so.

[Ramo]

Strictly speaking, Congress has authority suspend the right to a writ of habeas corpus, but that requires civilian courts to be inoperable (see Ex Parte Milligan). That's certainly not the case here.

[Kuciwalker]

The issue may involve the Constitution but it could've been either an issue with Presidential power or it could've been an issue that's bypassed by this law working differently.

(I didn't read the opinion, so these are just possibilities, not predictions.)

[KrazyHorse]

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/28june20041215/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-334.pdf

[Kuciwalker]

Too long to read while finishing up homework at 3:50 AM.

[KrazyHorse]

Aren't you in high school?

[KrazyHorse]

The first class I ever stayed up all night doing homework for was in the second semester of my senior year at University; Geometry & Topology II. I hadn't done any of the 4 problem sets assigned that semester, so on the day before they would no longer be accepted (some point in April) I stayed up all night, finished them all and then slept for 15 hours straight.

[Lefty Scaevola]

In the constituion the congress has express control over much of the appelate juridiction of the SCOTUS. The contituionally madated jurisdiction of the SCOTUS, origianl and appelate, is rather limited, with a provsion of such other jurisdiction as congress made allow by statute (no amendment needed). All perfectly with the constitutions express framework. You bozos should really try reading the rather short document before expounding upon it.

[Sikander]

So they aren't so much barring prisoners from the courts as they are barring the courts from the prisoners?

[civman2000]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
In the constituion the congress has express control over much of the appelate juridiction of the SCOTUS. The contituionally madated jurisdiction of the SCOTUS, origianl and appelate, is rather limited, with a provsion of such other jurisdiction as congress made allow by statute (no amendment needed). All perfectly with the constitutions express framework. You bozos should really try reading the rather short document before expounding upon it.

Er...that's entirely irrelevant. Congress can change SCOTUS's jurisdiction, but not the jurisdiction of the entire court system. They could say that SCOTUS can't hear appeals from prisoners, but they can't prevent ALL courts from hearing cases from prisoners.

[Lefty Scaevola]

I said nothing about the lower courts since anyone who could read and looked t the article could see that there was no attempt to remove their jurisdiction, its not in issue.. They also have the power to set the territorial boundries of the various Circuit Courts and can cheerfully assing GTMO to one that they believe will not further expand the rights of prsioners there. Also since all appeals from one geographic area like GTMO will go only to one circuit court, and thus the issue can not back into SCOTUS jursidiction by the "conflict among the circuit courts" jursidiction. Not also that in the constituion, that congress have the express power to suspend the specfic legal remedy of habeas corpus as it may please, leaving only direct appeals rather than collateral attacks available on the tribunals. This will effectively cut out the district court level since they do not have appelate jurisdiction (they only get invovled by collateral attack on tribunals judgments) leaving only the the circuit court as having appeal juriscition.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Aren't you in high school?

Yeah. I was supposed to spend the last quarter working on the paper on the stuff I did over the summer (RBS analysis of ZnO thin films) and instead I spent it doing stuff like posting at Poly. So I have to make it look like I actually did some work.