(SCOTUS:) Top U.S. officials can't be sued for post-9/11 abuse

[jefferson_dem]

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The former U.S. attorney general and the FBI director cannot be subjected to a lawsuit by a Pakistani man claiming abuse while imprisoned in New York after the September 11, 2001, attacks the Supreme Court ruled on Monday.

The nation's high court overturned a ruling that Javaid Iqbal, who was held more than a year after the attacks, can proceed with his lawsuit against former Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller.

Iqbal, a Muslim, said in the lawsuit that he had suffered verbal and physical abuse, including unnecessary strip searches and brutal beatings by guards. He said he had been singled


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE54H3CF20090518

[babylonsister]

1. This is a huge load of poo. So the admin was above the law, is

what they're saying. Anyone who doesn't think we need to change the make-up of the SC needs to rethink that.

[ananda]

2. Did you really expect a different ruling from this SCOTUS?

The officials in this country are so fucked,
totally compromised by the appearance of
power and a bully mentality.

[merh]

10. That is not what this opinion is about.

SCOTUS did not consider the merits of the claim, it simply ruled that the pleadings were insufficient. Scotus ruled that the 2nd Circuit should decide whether to remand the case to the lower court (district court) to allow Iqbal to seek leave of the court to correct the deficient complaint.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1015.pdf

[bat country]

15. The majority also

snuck some barriers on the merits in there. In short, the Court gratuitously said that its harder than the parties, the district court and the Second Circuit thought it was to establish liability on Ashcroft. It remanded the case to deal with technical, pleading issues but basically scrawled a note on the opinion that says, "warning: you will never be successful in suing ashcroft. Even if you are, we'll change the law, as we've done here. Remember that 'supervisory liability' concept in your brief? It doesn't really exist. HaHaHaHa!!!"

Sickening that they can and do change the rules in mid-game. Oh, and BIG surprise: 5-4 split along political grounds.

[merh]

18. I don't see it as scrawling a note warning they will not succeed

I see it as telling the Plaintiff how to couch his complaint so that he can succeed and then sending him back for the proper rewrite.

[wellst0nev0ter]

3. What Did They Use, The Reverse Nuremberg Defense?

We can't prosecute them since they gave the orders?

Christ, maybe Pat Robertson was onto something with his pray-a-thons for Supreme Court vacancies.

[Journeyman]

5. It's true; it was different -- they weren't following orders, they were ordering followers! . . .

In BushCo land, that absolves you of all culpability, especially when you get before the Wizards of Roberts and they start pulling all their levers behind the screen.

[Thothmes]

19. Must have used the same arguments

that Roosevelt's men when asked about locking up 120,000 Japanese Americans for the crime of being born of Japanese ancestery.

[merh]

12. please read the opinion

SCOTUS did not rule on the merits of the claim, they simple ruled the pleadings were deficient.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1015.pdf

[underpants]

4. Was this a criminal suit or a civil one?

I can't find it in the article

or is there no such thing as a criminal suit-there is a charge/indictment but an individual can't sue charging another individual with a crime?

:shrug:

[merh]

9. It is a civil suit

And Scotus ruled that the 2nd Circuit should decide whether to remand the case to the lower court (district court) to allow Iqbal to seek leave of the court to correct the deficient complaint.

See the opinion here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1015.pdf

The case is not over with yet.

On edit: SCOTUS did not consider the merits of the claim, it simply ruled that the pleadings were insufficient.

[underpants]

11. So a President can be sued for..... but the FBI head and the AG can't be for torture?

[merh]

13. That is not what the opinion states.

It states that the claims alleged by Iqbal were not sufficient, that the factual allegations contained in the complaint were insufficient, that the general allegations were not enough.

Go to the bottom of page 13 to see where that discussion begins.

The first part of the opinion is about jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

SCOTUS said that the 2nd Circuit should decide if the case should be remanded to the district court so that Iqbal can seek permission to correct the complaint, so that he can plead with specificity the facts that establish a claim for the relief sought.

[bat country]

16. The right wingers

weren't satisfied with finding procedural defects and remanding. No, they sent a good kick in the pants as well. The dissent highlights what is going on--rewriting Bivens/respondeat superior/supervisory liability substantive law on a procedural remand. They may be trying to hide it in a "pleadings" case, but they're still working in their poison at every opportunity.

[merh]

17. I agree, but a 5 to 4 split does not a rewrite create.

they did couch it in a procedural case and they left it open, for the 2nd circuit to consider for remand to the lower court.

[Roon]

6. Supreme Court rejects 9/11 detainee's lawsuit

Source: NBCNEWS

WASHINGTON - A lawsuit against FBI Director Robert Mueller and former Attorney General John Ashcroft by a former Sept. 11 detainee cannot go forward, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday.

In a 5-4 vote, the justices overturned a lower court decision that let Javaid Iqbal's lawsuit against the high-ranking officials proceed.

Iqbal is a Pakistani Muslim who spent nearly six months in solitary confinement in New York in 2002. He had argued that while Ashcroft and Mueller did not single him out for mistreatment, they were responsible for a policy of confining detainees in highly restrictive conditions because of their religious beliefs or race.



Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30807375/

[madaboutharry]

7. 5 - 4

Another reminder that elections matter.

[underpants]

8. Was this a criminal suit or a civil one?

I can't find it in the article

or is there no such thing as a criminal suit-there is a charge/indictment but an individual can't sue charging another individual with a crime?

:shrug:

[blueclown]

14. Anthony Kennedy joins the Repukes again in a 5-4 decision.

What a shocker. Might as well add him to the conservative wing of the court.

[w4rma]

20. He always was there. Kennedy was appointed by Raygun. (nt)

[Atticus]

21. Hel-l-l-o-o-o!!!

Please read the several posts by Merh. SCOTUS did NOT rule that the administration is above the law or that no one can question actions by the executive or anything of that nature.

They held that the man's complaint was insufficient or inappropriate and they sent it back to have the lower court decide if he should be permitted to restate it, i.e., try again.

There is plenty to be upset about with this Court but, so far, this case doesn't make the list.