CNN.com Breaking News: Supreme Court sidesteps challenge to Bush

[sinkingfeeling]

administration's wartime detention powers, rejecting appeal of Jose Padilla.

That's all there is right now

[Not Me]

1. I'll bet it was a 5-4 decision

[Demeter]

22. Nope 6-3

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060403/ts_nm/security_padilla_dc_3&printer=1;_ylt=AgnzTaxes8f3zN34sOU53YJg.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-


Supreme court won't review Bush's terrorism powers By James Vicini--Reuters


A divided Supreme Court declined on Monday to decide whether President George W. Bush has the power in the war on terrorism to order American citizens captured in the United States held in military jails without any criminal charges or a trial.

By a 6-3 vote, the court sided with the Bush administration and refused to hear an appeal by Jose Padilla, who was confined in a military brig in South Carolina for more than three years after Bush designated him an "enemy combatant."

The court's action does not amount to a ruling on the merits in the high-profile terrorism case and does not create any national precedent.

The case was affected by the Justice Department moving to bring criminal charges against Padilla in November, after his attorneys appealed to the high court. Padilla now is accused of being part of a cell that provided money and recruits for terrorists overseas and has pleaded not guilty.

He was transferred from military to civilian custody in Florida on January 5.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the enemy combatant issue should be considered moot because Padilla was charged in federal court. The Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to reject Padilla's appeal.

Padilla's appeal fell one vote short of the four needed to grant an appeal.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice John Paul Stevens, wrote to explain why the appeal was rejected. He cited the changed circumstances of Padilla's custody.

Justices David Souter, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg said they would hear the appeal. Ginsburg wrote to explain why the case should be heard.

"Nothing the government has yet done purports to retract the assertion of executive power Padilla protests. Although the government has recently lodged charges against Padilla in a civilian court, nothing prevents the executive from returning to the road it earlier constructed and defended," she said.

[Greeby]

2. Maybe the unholy four know the other five wouldn't have voted Shrub's way

:shrug:

[saigon68]

3. cowards in black robes let war criminal rule the world

[Greeby]

9. That could do with updating

Anyone got a class photo of the current court? I couldn't find one

[saigon68]

12. ONE WITH CRAZY ROBERTS NOT RELEASED YET

[BootinUp]

4. I hold this court in contempt!

Isn't that the quote from the Al Pacino movie.

[Inland]

5. Same rejection of responsibility as Congress

After all, Bush will be gone in three years, and the next president isn't going to be as evil and power grabbing as this one, right? Right?

Fucking whistling in the dark rather than look at whether our president is acting as a dictator.

[boobooday]

6. You have the perfect screen-name for posting this

Nobody will stand up to these frothing-at-the-mouth powermongers, not even when they wad the constitution into a spitball and throw it in the gutter.

The executive branch has corrupted the other two branches so thoroughly that they are now completely flaccid.

It makes me sick.

:puke:

[savemefromdumbya]

7. And there's worse to come

[LA lady]

8. 6-3

I heard 6-3

Souter Ginsberg Breyer

[BootinUp]

11. interesting.

So Stevens sided with the conservative wing.

[Guaranteed]

20. It only takes four to hear a case. nt

[0007]

10. Argh!!

[BootinUp]

13. AP Article:

Supreme Court Rejects War Powers Case

By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer 18 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A divided Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from a man held until recently as an enemy combatant without traditional legal rights, in effect sidestepping a challenge to Bush administration wartime detention powers.

Jose Padilla was moved in January to Miami to face criminal charges, and the government argued that the appeal over his indefinite detention was now pointless.

(snip)

Stevens and two other court members, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, explained their Monday votes not to deal with Padilla's case.

Although Padilla's claims "raise fundamental issues respecting the separation of powers, including consideration of the role and function of the courts, (the case) also counsels against addressing those claims when the course of legal proceedings has made them, at least for now, hypothetical," Kennedy wrote for the three.

(snip)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060403/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_enemy_combatant

[Kagemusha]

14. The whole argument was about it being illegal proceedings.

So saying it's now moved to "legal proceedings" so we don't need to touch it... yeah well, the court can take that position, yes. But that's only valid if you think courts should run from fundamental issues whenever possible and only address them as a last resort. I guess there's a case for that.

[hootinholler]

25. Except when it's a States rights issue...

Like wether or not to count votes.

-Hoot

[Jim__]

15. They ruled the case is moot.

Because Padilla's status has changed, there is no point in hearing the case.

I would like them to have ruled that bush did not have the power; but, not ruling is better than their ruling he did have the power; which would essentially void the Constitution.

[Teaser]

18. I disagree

because now the Bushies will continue with this kind of crap until confronted again.

[Jim__]

19. You're right.

This is not the best outcome. I'm just saying it's better than the SC having backed bush and effectively voided the Constitution. I have no doubt Scalia, Roberts and Thomas would have backed the Bushes.

[Teaser]

16. Democracy, meet nail and coffin

ugh.

[Massachusetts]

17. Civilian Tolerance with Political and Juris Shenanigans...

Will last only so long, remember, WE are the MAJORITY. The Civil and Corporate influence over the government is out of balance, it will be corrected, HUMAN history ALWAYS repeats.IMO

[loveandlight]

21. American civil society hopelessly lost

When the Congress and the courts refuse to stand up and challenge this administration, I find it really hard to maintain any hope. And certainly, there is no expectation that "the people" will rise up at all in defense of supposed terrorists and any legal rights they deserve. There are the few like Feingold and Conyers who fight the good fight, but with not much support behind them, how far can they get? Will we even be able to elect new people in 2006 to begin the fight in Congress in earnest? That remains to be seen. With voting machines in place, all of our high hopes in that regard may be another pie in the sky dream. I wish I wasn't feeling so down, but it's hard not to go there when events like this keep happening.

[AX10]

23. It's called Fascism!

[Poll_Blind]

24. Say it with me- C-I-V-I-L S-U-I-T, C-I-V-I-L S-U-I-T, C-I-V-I-L S-U-I-T

Regardless of whether Padilla is convicted of the crime that he is accused of, isn't he entitled to sue for civil damages against the government for his unlawful detention?

It would seem to follow that if the government changed his status so that he is now subject to the federal courts that Padilla could be reasonably expected to have a real and reasonable complaint against the government for his unprecedented detention and denial of a speedy trial?

PB