Souter plans to retire

  • News
  • Thread starter lisab
  • Start date
1,827
7
I think that the dissenting opinions of the conservative judges on the rulings regarding Guantanamo should be studied by legal experts to see if they were politically motivated.

It seems to me that if you argue that the president has the right to hold people without judicial review, then you are not qualified to be a Supreme Court judge who'se specific task it is to uphold the constitution.

If it is found that their opinions were flawed then they should be impeached.
 
LowlyPion
Homework Helper
3,079
4
I think that the dissenting opinions of the conservative judges on the rulings regarding Guantanamo should be studied by legal experts to see if they were politically motivated.

It seems to me that if you argue that the president has the right to hold people without judicial review, then you are not qualified to be a Supreme Court judge who'se specific task it is to uphold the constitution.

If it is found that their opinions were flawed then they should be impeached.
Well that will certainly be the argument if the Draft Report - started under Bush incidentally, but also held back by Mukasey at the end of the term, is adopted by the current Administration.

If the state Bar associations would disbar Bybee, then it seems pretty certain that he would most likely face impeachment.

Here's the article on the recommendations of the draft report.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jseitMBY7vwNpuvEsb1zvkvaVxrQD980JO180 [Broken]
Now that the deadline has passed, there is little more for officials to do but make revisions to it based on the responses they've received, and decide how much, if any, of the findings should be made public.
So apparently we should be hearing shortly, if at all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mheslep
Gold Member
254
728
I think that the dissenting opinions of the conservative judges on the rulings regarding Guantanamo should be studied by legal experts to see if they were politically motivated.

It seems to me that if you argue that the president has the right to hold people without judicial review, then you are not qualified to be a Supreme Court judge who'se specific task it is to uphold the constitution.

If it is found that their opinions were flawed then they should be impeached.
Have you read the opinions?
 
mheslep
Gold Member
254
728
Well that will certainly be the argument if the Draft Report - started under Bush incidentally, but also held back by Mukasey at the end of the term, is adopted by the current Administration.

If the state Bar associations would disbar Bybee, then it seems pretty certain that he would most likely face impeachment....
What? C. Iblis suggested the impeachment of Supreme Court justices. Are you saying that is 'certainly ... the argument' of the Draft Report?
 
LowlyPion
Homework Helper
3,079
4
What? C. Iblis suggested the impeachment of Supreme Court justices. Are you saying that is 'certainly ... the argument' of the Draft Report?
No. The Draft Report with respect to Bybee, Yoo and Bradbury could have implications for Bybee, a sitting Appellate Court Judge.

Having read http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/doj/bybee80102ltr.html", I tend to agree that he should be at risk. I think he even knows that he acted poorly. I don't buy the panic in the White House justified anything goes defense. At a minimum I think it was not good jurisprudence. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

As to sitting Supreme Court justices ... I don't see anything in particular to which they are at risk.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
1,827
7
Have you read the opinions?
I read what was reported quite some time ago on CNN. I also remember reading about a speech given by Scalia in Germany where he more or less said that the people detained in Guantanamo had no rights.
 
russ_watters
Mentor
19,016
5,168
I think that the dissenting opinions of the conservative judges on the rulings regarding Guantanamo should be studied by legal experts to see if they were politically motivated.
I'm sure they have been.
It seems to me that if you argue that the president has the right to hold people without judicial review, then you are not qualified to be a Supreme Court judge who'se specific task it is to uphold the constitution.
Key word being "people" -- as opposed to citizens. There is little doubt that those held in gitmo who are not citizens are not entitled to the same rights as citizens.
 
russ_watters
Mentor
19,016
5,168
For those interested in that case and the actual written opinion statements:http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/06-1195.pdf
Some excerpts:
Today the Court strikes down as inadequate the most
generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens
detained by this country as enemy combatants...

The Court rejects them today out of
hand, without bothering to say what due process rights
the detainees possess, without explaining how the statute
fails to vindicate those rights, and before a single petitioner
has even attempted to avail himself of the law’s
operation. And to what effect? The majority merely replaces
a review system designed by the people’s representatives
with a set of shapeless procedures to be defined by
federal courts at some future date. One cannot help but
think, after surveying the modest practical results of the
majority’s ambitious opinion, that this decision is not
really about the detainees at all, but about control of
federal policy regarding enemy combatants....
In any case, I find it a little rediculous to suggest impeaching the entire opposing side on a controvertial decision on political grounds. The fact that the decision was split means that the line between the two is grey and no one can really be considered extreme for their opinion.
 
Last edited:
LowlyPion
Homework Helper
3,079
4
Jennifer Granholm would be an interesting pick.
Two roads to the Supreme Court
Obama is apparently debating whether to choose a traditional judicial nominee or opt for a 'real world' selection to replace Justice David H. Souter

.... "He can do something bold if he wants, like Jennifer Granholm," Epstein said. "In terms of ideology, it's not going to be way, way left. It'll be someone sort of in the mainstream."

...If Obama is searching for his own O'Connor, Granholm is an appealing choice. A Harvard Law School graduate, she is a two-term governor from a state that has been hammered by the declining economy. She has an advocate in Vice President Joe Biden, who had Granholm serve as a proxy for Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as Biden prepared for the vice presidential debates last year.

"She's a tour de force," said David M. Uhlmann, a law professor at the University of Michigan. "She has an admirable intellect, clearly a very sophisticated legal mind, and the personal quality and the empathy the president has spoken about having in a Supreme Court candidate."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-nominees12-2009may12,0,156472.story
 
LowlyPion
Homework Helper
3,079
4
Heard elsewhere is the name Anita Hill.

What an inspired and delicious turn of the worm that would be. Grist for a real barn burner of a movie I would think.
 

Related Threads for: Souter plans to retire

Replies
17
Views
6K
  • Last Post
10
Replies
243
Views
20K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
5K
Replies
70
Views
9K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Top