Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

So the Torture Bill - I'm assuming this is going to the courts

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-29-06 12:55 PM
Original message
So the Torture Bill - I'm assuming this is going to the courts
I've gotta think someone out there realizes all the violations in it and will take it up to the Supreme Court where we still have a leaning towards the left (Breyer, Ginsberg, Souter, Stevens and Kennedy the Wild Card).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MrCoffee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-29-06 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
1. I have no confidence that a court will hear the claim.
Congress has authority over the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and all jurisdiction of the inferior federal courts. Congress could get rid of all the District and Circuit courts if it so chose.

The MCA strips federal courts of jurisdiction to hear claims under it. Section 950j(b) of the Act, to be precise.

I can't for the life of me come up with a potential plaintiff with standing to sue in order to challenge the constitutionality of the MCA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-29-06 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. The Plantiff part is easy
There are dozens of liberal groups that have an interest in it including the ACLU and Amnesty International.

You're right about the lower courts, but if we could get this thing to the Supreme Court we would have a chance
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-29-06 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. Those groups, valuable as they are, cannot be plaintiffs unless
they themselves are charged with something. There has to be a specific case, not a theory, that is brought before the court, and this crap is written to prevent anyone so charged from being able to come before the court - no habeas corpus, no judicial review, no right to appeal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrCoffee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-29-06 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. The plaintiff part is almost impossible now.
1) You have to show that you are entitled to bring suit in federal court. Congress controls the jurisdiction of the federal courts. They just removed detainees from that jurisdiction.

2) The ACLU/Amnesty International can't show standing. They have no actual or imminent harm, and associational suits don't cut it without actual or imminent harm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-29-06 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #1
14. Karpinsky?
She was busted for actions that were retroactively made legal. Can/would she appeal/sue?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wryter2000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-29-06 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
2. One quibble
I wouldn't call those guys as leaning toward the left. I might describe them as respecting the Constitution, but we'll wait and see how they rule on this. I'm sure it will go to the courts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-29-06 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Well four of them I could see them supporting the Constitution
But Kennedy is that damn wild card and would probably be the deciding factor if this makes SCOTUS
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
savemefromdumbya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-29-06 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
5. who will take it to the courts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-29-06 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. My guess is either the ACLU or Amnesty International
I'm sure I could think of others
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radfringe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-29-06 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
7. might not just have to "depnd" on the left leaners for this
the repugs are and have been busy working on various amendments/clauses to stuff in other bills which limits what the courts can and can't do when it comes to "detainees" (which is a sugar-coated word for tortureree)

O'conner is running around the country speaking out about the restrictions and interference by the rubber-stampering GOPers... and according to one news report it was mentioned that thomas, alito, roberts are also not too happy about this
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-29-06 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
8. One question: will there be any legal case to take?
Consider: the whole point of this atrocity of a bill is that we can all now be imprisoned without a lawyer, a trial, confronting evidence, etc. So, when people start disappearing, what legal case will there be to take to a court and challenge?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Golden Raisin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-29-06 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
9. Don't count on the SCOTUS.
The former court (MINUS solid right-wingers Alito & Roberts who are now installed) was the court that incoronated Bush after the debacle in Florida. You can't count on justices assumed to be "liberal".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-29-06 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. You got a point there but.....
Kennedy has always been a wild card and although he fucked up with the 2000 election, there was many times he came in with the 4 on the left. If a RoeVWade hearing would come to SCOTUS he's actually on our side.

But having said that - I have no fucking clue how he would vote. But at least we could try
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Parche Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-29-06 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
11. courts
We need a DU, Dem.com class action suit against these bills..........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 08:02 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC