June 29, 2006


“Supreme Court Blocks Bush, Gitmo War Trials”

Filed under: SCOTUS, War on Terror
By Steve Dillard (Email) @ 1:33 pm

The AP has this report. You can read the opinion here. 

I’ll try to post my thoughts on the opinion sometime later today (if possible).

Update: Does anyone else think Hamdan is Justice Stevens’s parting shot? I can’t think of a “better” note for Stevens to leave on than this one. I mean, from a legal liberal’s perspective, Hamdan is the jurisprudential equivalent of Jordan hitting the final shot in game six of 1998 NBA finals. 

I could be wrong, but my gut tells me Stevens is packin’ up his bags and headin’ to FLA.

Let’s hope that is indeed the case. Stevens’s tenure on the Court has been a disgrace, and it is time for him to step down.


Trackback/Pingbacks:

The trackback URL for this post: http://www.southernappeal.org/index.php/archives/1287/trackback

  1. The Remedy

    2. Court Rules 5-3 in favor of Hamdan... As I’m sure most of our readers know by now, the Supreme Court released its decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld today. The ruling was 5-3 in favor of Hamdan and overturning the D.C. Court of Appeals. Chief Justice Roberts did......

10 Rebel Yells to ““Supreme Court Blocks Bush, Gitmo War Trials””

  1. Righty Says:
    June 29th, 2006 at 3:28 pm

    Lets hope you are right about Stevens. When do you think he would announce it? Tomorrow or Monday?

  2. publius Says:
    June 29th, 2006 at 4:11 pm

    define “disgrace”

  3. Bart Harmon Says:
    June 29th, 2006 at 4:33 pm

    Is it too “Pollyanna-ish” to ask if Hamadan is really that bad in the big picture?

    One: The opinion cedes the power to Bush to keep the combatants in detention without trial as long as hostilities are occurring (as long as the war on terror proceeds)–this could be decades.

    Two: The opinion (especially Kennedy’s concurrence) invites Congress to pass further legislation completely giving Bush the army tribunals he wants for these combatants–it’s just that the statute being construed didn’t do accomplish that.

    Three: The case creates a great wedge issue for the upcoming elections. Introduce remedial legislation that Bush needs (as Kennedy’s concurring opinion suggests) and dare Democrats to oppose it. They will walk into that trap. And, again, Democrats will look weak on defense right before an election.

    Brilliant. No?

  4. JimBob Says:
    June 29th, 2006 at 5:09 pm

    I just read an interview with Justice Stevens, in which he was asked about the perception that he has changed from a somewhat moderate Justice to a liberal. He responded by saying that he hasn’t changed; the people around him have.

    Justice Stevens may want to look back at his vote in Bakke and then at his vote in Grutter, as well as some of the Court’s death penalty opinions, before saying that he hasn’t changed over the years.

  5. Mark Jakubik Says:
    June 29th, 2006 at 7:31 pm

    Had the same thought today, Feddie. What better way for a lib to go out than after having stuck it to a Republican (note I did not say “conservative”) president. If he leaves now, he can go out on what for him, if not for the Republic, is a high note. Keep hanging on and, at age 85, when thewheels can fall off in a hurry, he risks turning into an embarassment, as Justices Marshall and Douglas, to name two, did.

  6. JimBob Says:
    June 29th, 2006 at 7:59 pm

    And remember, he has apparently said something like, “I was appointed by a Republican president, and my successor will be as well.”

    If it happens, it’ll be early next week (after this news cycle passes).

  7. Bob Says:
    June 29th, 2006 at 10:53 pm

    While I’d like to think Stevens was on his way out, that’s probably not the case. I recently talked with a federal judge. He talked about a recent meeting Stevens had with judges from the 7th Circuit. Without notes, the Justice talked about all the 7th Circuit cases the Supremes had decided in the past year. He then opend the floor to general questions on S.Ct. jurisprudence. Whatever we might think of Stevens’ opinions, he’s still doing well for his age and, as long as he’s of sound mind and body, he’s not likely to retire/resign. IMHO.

  8. Jeff Says:
    June 29th, 2006 at 11:02 pm

    Excellent legal-to-sports metaphor, Feddie.

    I don’t always agree with Stevens, but he’s not a disgrace.

  9. BillyHW Says:
    June 29th, 2006 at 11:08 pm

    And remember, he has apparently said something like, “I was appointed by a Republican president, and my successor will be as well.”

    Hasn’t that quote been debunked?

  10. FunBoy Says:
    June 29th, 2006 at 11:40 pm

    I agree - what is a disgrace? Besides Bush v. Gore… If Stevens is, then they all are.

Powered by WordPress