What are the prospects of this torture bill going up before SCOTUS,

[Marr]

and being ruled unconstitutional? I would've said zero a couple of months ago, but after the Hamdan case, I'm not so sure. So I have a two part question.

1. What do you suppose the odds are of it coming up before the Supreme Court, and if so, how soon would you expect it?

2. If this thing *were* stamped unconstitutional by the SCOTUS, would these war crimes immunities evaporate as well?

[longship]

1. 100% It's for sure.

1. IANAL, but in my forty years of political activism I've never seen a bill which is more patently unconstitutional than this one. Somebody is going to challenge it. It might take some time for somebody to get standing, but it's going to happen.

2. That would depend on precisely which provisions of the law that SCOTUS strikes down. They could conceivable strike the whole thing, but who knows what that would take.

[MrCoffee]

7. No one has standing to challenge.

[longship]

8. You didn't read my post, did you?

I thought I was clear on this very point.

"It might take some time for somebody to get standing, but it's going to happen."

[mb7588a]

2. well...

McConnell vs. FEC (against the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill) didn't take too long... but this one may take a while.

Who would appeal?

The problem with the judiciary is they have NO enforcement power, or Bush would be in jail now, according to Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

[johnaries]

3. Without habeus corpus, how can it make it to SCOTUS?

You have to prove damages, and the only people who can prove damages will be in jail and denied any chance to go to court.

[BuyingThyme]

4. Bingo!

(This is my first bingo post.)

[OneBlueSky]

5. I've been wondering how legal challenges to the law would work . . .

theoretically, if someone is detained under this law, they would have standing to sue over its constitutionality . . . unfortunately, however, the very nature of their detention will likely mean that they have no access to an attorney . . . their detention probably wouldn't even be confirmed by the government . . .

now, I suppose some other group could challenge the law, but who would have standing? . . . the ACLU? . . . the American people as a whole? . . . and what would be the basis of their claim if they can't even prove that anyone's been detained under the law? . . .

anyone know enough about constitutional law to comment? . . .

[MrCoffee]

6. It'll never get to court. Who has standing to sue?

I can't think of a single potential plaintiff with standing to sue.

[Bluebear]

9. What if the plaintiff is dubbed "hostile to the US" by bringing the suit?

It can't go to the SC if the plaintiff is held as an enemy of the State and tortured away.

[bowens43]

10. Close to 100%

removing Habeas Corpus was the death of that bill.