From CNN Lawcenter:
The administration had sought a more clear-cut endorsement of its policies than it got. The White House had claimed broad authority to seize and hold potential terrorists or their protectors for as long as the president saw fit – and without interference from judges or lawyers.
In both cases, the ruling was 6-3, although the lineup of justices was different in the two decisions.
Ruling in the case of American-born detainee Yaser Esam Hamdi, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said the court has “made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation’s citizens.”
Congress did give the president authority to hold Hamdi, a four-justice plurality of the court said, but that does not cancel out the basic right to a day in court.
The court ruled similarly in the case of about 600 men born outside the United States and held indefinitely at a U.S. Navy prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The men can use American courts to contest their captivity and treatment, the high court said.
The Supreme Court sidestepped a third major terrorism case, ruling that a lawsuit filed on behalf of detainee Jose Padilla improperly named Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld instead of the much lower-level military officer in charge of the Navy brig in South Carolina where Padilla has been held for more than two years.
Meanwhile, somewhere in a cave along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, Usama Bin Laden enjoys sweet tea and figs, and fingers through his Rolodex, looking for Gerry Spence’s business card.
update: A nice round-up here. More here, from Dodd Harris. Also, Talk Left.
I swear, the way this SCOTUS has been punting lately, they would make the damm pro-bowl this year.
And their hang-time is ridiculous.
Scotus-“We’ve decided to rule for both sides of the argument on just about every issue, and thereby piss everyone off at once.”
All that is not compulsory is strictly forbidden.
I’ve been seeing this “punting” complaint a lot. No use trying to stamp it out everywhere it appears, but I don’t suppose it can hurt to point out at least some of the time that it’s inapposite.
This is one of those proverbial (if you watch Law & Order) things you learn “on the first day of law school. The judicial canon is opposed to deciding a Constitutional case where a non-Constitutional rationale will suffice and the courts consistently, throughout their history, have decided cases on the lowest level grounds possible.
As an example, it will always refuse to decide cases on the merits if the jurisidiction is wrong (as in today’s case and Newdow’s). To do otherwise would undermine the very foundation of the law’s jurisdictional requirements.
How exactly does a pink foamy mist drink tea and eat figs?