Supreme Court rejects Padilla-war powers case. More to come...

[Hobo]

Blub on MSNBC Webpage


- Hobo

[leveymg]

1. Self-delete.

[tritsofme]

2. This isn't Hamdan.

Its another appeal by Padilla, and they only refused to hear it, not rule on its merits.

[leveymg]

4. Thanks for correcting that.

[Benhurst]

5. Since citizens of the the Christian European kingdoms had the right to

seek sanctuary in the Church, one could argue our citizens of European descent have fewer rights under George Walker Bush than they have had since the days of the Roman Empire.

I hope the Supreme Court will strike down the worst parts of the so-called "Patriot" Act, but I fear it won't.

[JDPriestly]

3. The Supreme Court needs to put its foot down now on this.

I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, my reaction is "Shame on Kennedy. He understands the issues. The Court should have the courage to take a stand on the separation of powers issue before it is too late." Even if the issues are moot in the Padilla case, the Supreme Court could rule if it decided that the same issues are likely to arise again -- and they are.

On the other hand, I can understand why the Court may prefer to wait until the issues actually do arise -- as they will, so that their decision can be acted on for all to see. If they issued an opinion in the Padilla case that was advisory because the issues are moot, the Bush administration could just ignore it or misinterpret it as it might wish, and the decision, even if very clear and correct on the separation of powers issue might be used to cause more harm than good. The Bush administration would just ignore the decision or start some huge campaign to discredit it.

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/03/AR2006040300525.html

[peter_the_great]

6. I wish they had ruled against the administration

I wish they had ruled against the administration while Padilla
was being held. Also they should have argued that the
appellate court could not rule on Padilla as they had no
jurisdiction. Padilla is from Chicago IL. The jail was in
South Carolina. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
Richmond, VA does not have jurisdiction over Illinois which is
where Padilla lived and was arrested and where he should have
been held and arraigned.

Supreme Court rejects war powers challenge, mercurynews, 3 Apr
06

Supreme court wimps out on Padilla case. So much for the fifth
amendment!

WASHINGTON - A divided Supreme Court on Monday rejected an
appeal from Jose Padilla, held as an enemy combatant without
traditional legal rights for more than three years,
sidestepping a challenge to Bush administration wartime
detention powers.

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.

Three justices said the court should have agreed to take up
the case anyway: Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg
and Stephen Breyer.

And three other court members, including Chief Justice John
Roberts, said that they would be watching to ensure Padilla
receives the protections "guaranteed to all federal
criminal defendants."

An appeals court panel had all but called for the high court
to deal with the case, saying it was troubled by the Bush
administration's change in legal strategy - it brought
criminal charges only after it looked like the Supreme Court
was going to step in.

Justices first considered in 2004 whether Padilla's
constitutional rights were violated when he was detained as an
"enemy combatant" without charges and access to a
lawyer, traditional legal rights. Justices dodged a decision
on technical grounds. In a dissent Justice John Paul Stevens
said then that "at stake in this case is nothing less
than the essence of a free society."

Justices are reviewing a second case arising from the
government pursuit of terrorists, an appeal by a foreign
terrorist suspect facing a military commission on war crimes
charges at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Arguments were last week.

Padilla's case was different. It asked the court to clarify
how far the government can go when its hunt for terrorists
leads to Americans in this country.
Based on the vote breakdown, it appears the court would have
agreed to hear the appeal had Padilla not been charged.

"In light of the previous changes in his custody status
and the fact that nearly four years have passed since he first
was detained, Padilla, it must be acknowledged, has a
continuing concern that his status might be altered
again," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for himself,
Stevens and Roberts. "That concern, however, can be
addressed if the necessity arises."

Padilla, a former Chicago gang member and a convert to Islam,
was arrested in 2002 after a trip to Pakistan. The government
alleged at the time that he was part of a plot to detonate a
radiological "dirty bomb" in the United States.

The Bush administration has maintained since 2002 that it had
the power to detain him without charges. However, in an abrupt
change in strategy, the government late last year brought
criminal charges against Padilla. His appeal was pending at
the Supreme Court at the time.

The charges do not match the long-standing allegations that
Padilla sought to blow up apartment buildings. Instead, he was
charged with being part of a North American terrorism cell
that raised funds and recruited fighters to wage violent jihad
outside the United States.

The strategy shift angered a panel of 4th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals in Richmond, Va., which had ruled last September
that Padilla's constitutional rights had not been violated by
his detention.
Judge J. Michael Luttig, a conservative who was named to the
bench by President Bush's father, wrote in a decision late
last year that the administration's actions left the
impression that Padilla had been held in military custody
"by mistake."

Ginsburg said Monday that although Padilla is charged in
civilian court "nothing prevents the executive (branch)
from returning to the road it earlier constructed and
defended."
"This case, here for the second time, raises a question
'of profound importance to the nation,'" she wrote.

Padilla pleaded innocent in Florida to the criminal charges
and is scheduled to be put on trial this fall. A federal judge
refused to set bail for Padilla after a prosecutor said he had
a history of arrests and convictions for violent crimes -
including murder as a juvenile.

The case is Padilla v. Hanft, 05-533."
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/14252525.htm

[bunkerbuster1]

7. Welcome to DU, and FWIW, my gut tells me

the Supes did, indeed, "wimp out" as you suggest.

[fshrink]

8. Lol. Yeah right!