Does the supreme court have the ability to overturn this torture bill?

[cynatnite]

Not saying they would since they lean right...just curious.

[truth2power]

1. IMO, yes. They can declare it unconstitutional. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

2. Yes.

But they will not do so. They might strip some of its provisions. At a minimum the retroactive legalization of crimes committed as far back as 1998 will stand. Bush just got immunity.

[Junkdrawer]

3. They can, BUT the bill has many "No Judicial Review" clauses...

that give the SCOTUS an out from even hearing a case.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. Not really. Congress can't just take away federal court jurisdiction

because they feel like it -- there are some serious separation of powers issues.

Adding:

Article III of the Constitution, which creates the Supreme Court, says:

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States, between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

Clear as gin, IMO. So how the hell can they say the judicial branch can't hear these cases??

[WilliamPitt]

9. That'll be the first thing challenged in court

Kinda hard to erase one whole branch of the government.

[Junkdrawer]

10. Remember how they kept quoting Jackson in the Youngstown case...

during all the recent SCOTUS confirmation hearings?

1. When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate. In these circumstances, and in these only, may he be said (for what it may be worth) to personify the federal sovereignty. If his act is held unconstitutional under these circumstances, it usually means that the Federal Government as an undivided whole lacks power. A seizure executed by the President pursuant to an Act of Congress would be supported by the strongest of presumptions and the widest latitude of judicial interpretation, and the burden of persuasion would rest heavily upon any who might attack it.


http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/youngstown.html

[tkmorris]

16. Two really

In many ways the Congress just turned over certain parts of it's duties to the Executive branch did they not?

[dave502d]

4. If a case come before them they could rule on some part of it. n/t

[Rosco T.]

5. Yes. Common sense would say so...

.. and (as a point of hope), I would think that any Supreme that says it's ok is opening THEMSELVES to impeachment (with a Dem/Dem Congress)

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. They sure as hell do.

This bill is spectacularly, monumentally unconstitutional. It's industrial-strength unconstitutional, in about a dozen different ways. I think even this Supreme Court might choke on it -- after all, they kicked the government's ass in Runsfeld v. Hamdan. In fact, this abomination is Bush's attempt to undo Hamdan. Only problem for Bush is that Congress can't make an unconstitutional law constitutional. The Supremes win that war. Even the attempt to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction won't work because of the Constitutional separation of powers.

I firmly believe that Bush and his stooges in Congress all know this is an unconstitutional law, but they could vote for it, wrap themselves in the flag and claim they're Protecting 'Merka from Terra, then whine about activist lib'rul judges when the Supremes throw it out.

[cynatnite]

8. That does make sense...

Thanks for the explanation.

[hang a left]

11. I started another thread about this kind of

What is process through which it is challenged?? Can someone go straight to the SC?

[mcscajun]

12. Only someone with "legal standing" to challenge it.

The Supreme Court exercises "original jurisdiction" rarely; most cases are under their "appellate jurisdiction" Which would mean you had somehow been directly impacted by enforcement of any provision of this bill somewhere lower on the judicial ladder.

Short of that, no.

[hang a left]

13. Doesn't the ACLU file challenges to things like this??nt

[mcscajun]

14. Sure they do, but on behalf of someone impacted by a ruling.

Or by filing Amicus briefs in a pending case.

I'm an ACLU member, and I'll be looking to see what the leadership plans, if anything.

[cool user name]

18. Well then there you have it.

Without judicial review, and anyone who would be directly effected by this law will have their Habeas Corpus rights eliminated, then there is no possible reason that (a person who has been effected directly) an appeal will ever be presided by the Supreme Court.

Yet, I'm not an attorney. Can someone set me straight on this?

[many a good man]

15. How many divisions does the SCOTUS have?

They wouldn't dare stand in the way. Die volk hatten gesprochen.

[Jack Rabbit]

17. Yes, of course

However, since the potential victim of torture is barred from using the courts to redress his grievances, its going to be pretty hard to get a case before the court.

[kentuck]

19. Stop dreaming...

and face the reality of what was voted on today.