Please use this blog to discuss the case.........sort out the facts.........what are the issues.........what questions do you have? What do you think they meant when they said........?
We want to use this to bring the whole group along so we can carry on a conversation about the case during Constitution Day.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
So far, while reading J. Scalia's dissenting...I belive the Court failed to substantiate what would occur with the pending cases. According to J. Scalia, Hamden should be granted Habeas on the basis that although Guantanamo Bay is not the alien enemy's territorial jurisdiction, "nothing in the text of the Constitution, extends such a right, nor does anything in our Statute." (Scalia, J., dissenting, pg. 16). More to come...still reading and trying to understand the content of the case.
Mr. Freeman, am I understanding what J. Scalia stated in his dissent or am I misinterpreting the case? I am having a difficult time with this. Help.
Gracie
Hey Grace,
I knew I was in trouble when I couldn't get past the first paragraph without looking up the word "habeas"! I have no legal background or exposure so I knew i was in trouble.
See ya class.
Freeman, said this was not going to be easy reading and it is not. I am with you on this L, I have no legal background and cannot figure out how to seperate this reading to find the things he is looking for. Before the end of the night I will come up with something, but for 2 days I have not been able to figure it out. There is a log going on.
Okay, I have done some extensive reading for the past days and now I am thinking I am understanding a little more. The facts in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case where J. Scalia, Thomas and Alito are as follows:
1. Hamdan filed a Writ of Habeas (being unlawfully imprisoned).
2. The decision was later appealed to the Court of Appeals.
3. The Court of Appeals decision was appealed to the Supreme Court.
Our case basically states the trial courts have no jurisdiction in the matter and state the case should be heard by the military commission.
In J. Scalia's dissent, the military commission is a proper court to hear the Hamdan case since the President's Order authorized trials by the military commission. The problem is that even if Congress had not clearly eliminated jurisdiction, J. Scalia felt the Supreme Court nor the lower courts should have jurisdiction over the case either.
In J. Thomas' dissent, he states that the Court had no jurisdiction in the case. He further states that Hamdan was not protected under the Geneva Convention which defines the requirements to be considered a prisoner of war. In this case, Hamdan was considered to be an illegal combatant and not a prisoner of war. This leads to him not being protected with certain rights granted to prisoners of war. He further stated the President had authority to assign a special court and had done so by stating Hamdan's case and others would be heard by the military commission.
Lastly, J. Alito's dissent stated the military commission is the proper court to hear Hamdan's case. He further states that he did not understand the Court's comment that the "military commission cannot be guarded as a regular constituted court." He uses the examples of different courts to establish the differences in structures but stating they are all considered "regular constituted courts." By this, he basically states that the military commission should be considered a regular constituted court in cases of war. He further stated that while trying Hamdan before the military commission, procedural mistakes could be made and reviewed during the review process of the case.
I hope I am on the right track. Let me know what you all think of my understandings...
Gracie
Gracie's comments (2nd) have led the way. Try and track her interpretation with the language.
The court plurality....not a majority, voted to permit Supreme Court to handle this case.
Strongest part of Scalia dissent is, "Hellooooooo.....we cannot hear this. We do not have the jurisdiction."
Keep polishing this. Great and very difficult job.
A few of the questions flying around in all this:
AUMF
Detainee Treatment Act
abstention
equity
The AUMF was the resolution created shortly after September 11th authorizing the President the specific authorization to use military force against terrorists. Both the House and Senate agreed with same granting the President the authority. The Detainee Treatment Act was basically created as I would call it "a supplement" to the Geneva Convention, which specifically defines the protections the al Qaeda detainees have or do not have while in detention. While some Courts agreed that civilian courts were proper for the hearing of the Writ, J. Scalia stated that Courts other than the Supreme Court had jurisdiction over the case. Specifically, the military commission. I am still trying to figure out the whole "equity" issue. As soon as I figure it out, I will let you all know.
Well, there where a lot of things I had to look up to even began to understand what was going on. I did realize that I didn’t have to necessary now what had gone on, I just needed to understand the difference between dissent and concurrence. Although I did read on the case just to be familiar.
These three justices are telling why they voted against the decision. Over all the three did not believe they had jurisdiction over the case.
I hope we can discuss better in class, as I am sure I still cannot answer the post questions.
Also what I get from the "equity" question is that they should be looking at the whole law not just certain parts. "I would abstain from excersing our equity jurisdiction, as the Government request." -Scalia p.24
Maybe I am reading into this wrong this is where I am getting my thought from http://www.constitution.org/cmt/ccl/equi_juris.htm .
Kaniesha helped me out in narrowing down what I believe to be equity. I also had to look up the word "equity" together with jurisprudence. In reading the definitions of both, I realize the Court basically went by cases and interpretations as opposed to applying the common law. In a way, it was as Kaniesha mentioned, the Court' applying laws in part, but not in whole. I feel they may have read between the lines to find a justification for their basis on jurisdiction as opposed to reading the law as is. Hopefully, I have interpreted the definition of equity appropriately.
Gracie
Justice Thomas' opinion was exceedingly long. What I basically got out of it is that the Detainee Treatment Act clearly states that the Supreme court has no jurisdiction to consider Hamdan's writ. And that just because it does not explicitly state that includes all PENDING CASES, doesn't mean that it doesn't include them.
Moreover, why would the Supreme court want to be in "direct conflict" with the President. And if they get involved with this case that there are about 599 more to consider. That'll keep 'em busy for a long time!
Post a Comment