home

High Court Weasels Out of Padilla Decision

That's our word for it--weasels--the Associated Press calls it a sidestep. Whatever. The Supreme Court today declined to address the Jose Padilla case on its merits. The opinion is here (pdf):

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. Padilla must refile a lawsuit challenging his detention in a lower court.

Update: Scotus blog is blogging live via Blackberry while reading the Padilla and Hamdi opinions. Some of their comments:

Hamdi is 8-1. Within the majority, the 4 Justice plurality (which gives Hamdi intermediate procedural rights) is formed by the dissenters in the Apprendi cases, reflecting their pragmatic take on the Sixth Amendment. The strongest believers in Apprendi - Scalia and Stevens - take the hardest line on the right to get into a criminal court.

More:

By far, the most striking and passionate were those of Justice Scalia concurring in Hamdi and Justice Stevens dissenting in Padilla. Justice Scalia argued forcefully that the government must charge Hamdi with treason in court, and the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus has a vital tradition and could be suspended only by Congress through democratic means. Justice Steves, using exceptionally strong rhetoric, argued that the detention of Padilla incommunicado amounted to the “tools of a tyrant.”

Scotus Blog says the four most liberal justices dissented on jurisdiction and reached the merits. "In strongest possible terms, dissenters call this essentially tyrrany."

< Miranda Takes a Hit | High Court: Foreign Guantanamo Detainees Can Challenge Their Detention >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort: