I’m trying my very hardest to leave the political blogging to the plebs but its getting harder and harder as we get farther away from the term. Regardless, there are still a few important topics of the 2006 term that haven’t been discussed. I wrote a bit about the politics inside the court that have suddenly shifted so as to allow review in Boumediene v. Bush. I can’t verify this fact, but SCOTUSblog reports that this is the first instance of the court rejecting then accepting review since 1947. Also according to SCOTUSblog, a vote for rehearing takes 5 justices, not the customary 4 for a normal acceptance of certiorari. In order to get five votes, Justices Kennedy and Stevens almost certainly flipped over the the liberal side. Lets take a look at the case itself.

The case was a victory for Bush in the US Circuit Court for DC and you can find the Circuit Court’s opinion here. The 2-1 majority found that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was constitutional in its stripping of the writ of habeus corpus in certain cases.

The dissenting opinion was penned by Judge Judith Rogers. Fortunately, Janice Rogers Brown didn’t vote in this case and get another opportunity to market her conservative credentials. Like Judge Judith Rogers, Judge Janice Rogers Brown sits on the US Circuit Court for DC and she is often listed as a frontrunner for elevation to the Supreme Court by a conservative President. A black, conservative, woman? How many senators can say no to that? Probably 51. After reading the dissent, I conclude that it is of little consquence as this case is not moving on the the Supreme Court.

The best way to sum up the arguments is by taking a look at the court-published ‘questions presented‘:

1. Whether the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-366, 120 Stat. 2600, validly stripped federal court jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions filed by foreign citizens imprisoned indefinitely at the United States Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay.

2)Whether Petitioners’ habeas corpus petitions, which establish that the United States government has imprisoned Petitioners for over five years, demonstrate unlawful confinement requiring the grant of habeas relief or, at least, a hearing on the merits.

On a totally unrelated sidenote, I’m sitting here listening to the neo-facist Sean Hannity arguing with some guys about why booing in high school basketball games is a ‘fun.’ Alan Homes asked, if they could hold up signs that said boo. There were actually hecklers in the newsroom that starting laughing and saying things! I have now made it my life’s mission to find a video of this glory. Gotta love how Fox News prides itself in reporting real news.

Now they’re talking about the decision in Parents Involved. Holmes talked at great length about Kennedy’s consenting opinion. I hope everyone who reads this blog knows that he did not write a consenting opinion, in fact he wrote a concurring one.



Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Categories

Random Posts

  • Supreme Court Justices: Age at Retirement: Using the still-fabulous Supreme Court Compendium data set, I've thrown together a chart plotting the ages of each Justice at retirement. I ...
  • A Big Little Case: Next Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in an interesting case about water law in Montana, PPL Montana v. Montana. The case wi...
  • Updated Term Charts: Starting this week, I'll be posting my updated charts on SCOTUSblog. You can find the first SB version of my charts here. More spec...
  • Traitors to the Cause: 6-3 decisions are, statistically speaking, the least common vote split. Frequently, those cases split along the ideological lines that are s...
  • New Opinions and Updated Statistics: The Supreme Court released three new opinions today and dismissed one hotly-anticipated case as improvidently granted. Graham v. Florida-...