US top court to decide Guantanamo cases

Reuters ^ | 11/10/2003 | Reuters

[kkindt]

Where in the constitution does it say that the Supreme Court gets to decide what its jurisdiction will be? Is it not more dangerous to our freedoms to permit this court to decide whether it has jurisdiction? Isn't this the role of the Congress?

[dirtboy]

Where in the constitution does it say that the Supreme Court gets to decide what its jurisdiction will be?

Well, the Bush Administration has declared that it has sole jurisdiction here. I'd rather have this process reviewed by the courts, if anything to shut up the wingnuts. But, as to your question as to who decides jurisdiction, all three branches continually try to declare their jurisdiction - and, if SCOTUS were to over-assert itself, Congress has the last say in the form of impeachment and removal.

[don'tbedenied]

Marbury v. Madison (1803)
"The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the Constitution."
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."

[Hugin]

The problem with that is that you need a two thirds majority to convict in an impeachment. That's unlikely given that one party would usually back the court. That means that the court has carte blanc to decide the law is anything it wants. The only effective counterbalance would be for the President to announce that that the court had usurped executive power, and he would ignore the ruling. Then it would be up to the Congress to impeach the president, which would probably fail for the same reason.

[azhenfud]

"The U.S. Supreme Court say it will decide whether foreign nationals can use American courts to challenge their incarceration at the U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the first cases it will hear on the Bush administration's war on terror."

I have a simple-minded proposal. Instead of having the USSC tied up with issues not directly connected to US citizens (taxpayers), I suggest we, US citizens/taxpayers, demand a full monitary reimbursement from the Justices for resources expended by those who "sit" on any "hearing", should they "decide" they have the authority to take up this flapdoodle.

The International Criminal Court judges want to make themselves useful idiots - why not ship the less-dangerous there one at a time to help "expend" the ICC's funds?

[Hugin]

Quoting a court decsion on what it's own power is, rather than the constitution, only proves kkindt's point.

[Huck]

Did you check Article 3, Section 2?

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

[WL-law]

Quoting a court decsion on what it's own power is, rather than the constitution, only proves kkindt's point.

Exactly -- it's a clear case of tautological reasoning.

It's not the USSC that decides, it's the Constitution that decides -- and that is an important distinction. The Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch have powers, including the power to interpret, just as the Judicial Branch does.

BTW, the Constitution says that its rights apply to all persons in the physical confines, the physical jurisdiction, of the US.

Guantanamo is NOT a part of the US. And that's why it was chosen, to cut off the mischief of the ACLU types who want to blur the distinction between accused criminals (who, if citizens, have full constitutional rights until properly convicted) and prisoners of war.

[Hugin]

Then there is this part..."In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

Congress has the power to bar the court from hearing appeals on the Constitutionality or any particlar law it passes. I wonder what would happen if it used that power?

[azhenfud]

"Congress has the power to bar the court from hearing appeals on the Constitutionality or any particlar law it passes. I wonder what would happen if it used that power?"

I would pass out in shock.

[Sgt_Schultze]

Here's what the Constitution says...

Clause 1: 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; (See Note 10)--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.

Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

So according to the plans of our founders, our representatives have the final say as to the extent of the Court's jurisdiction. They only need to assert themselves.

[Huck]

Congress has the power to bar the court from hearing appeals on the Constitutionality or any particlar law it passes. I wonder what would happen if it used that power?

I believe they have. I think the first Congress passed some judicial acts that are still followed today.

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

Sorry,supreme court,Cuba is NOT in America!You have NO JURISDICTION!There now,see how easy that decision was and it did'nt take 6 months to reach it.

[general_re]

Congress has the power to bar the court from hearing appeals on the Constitutionality or any particlar law it passes. I wonder what would happen if it used that power?

Ex parte Quirin and Korematsu would essentially remain the guiding cases in this area. But that'll never happen in this case, and not in the vast majority of cases - the courts make too convenient of a scapegoat for Congress for them to really start trimming their jurisdiction.

[Strawberry AZ]

You wrote: In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

It appears your underlined citation refers only to cases appealed from an inferior court.

[mrsmith]

Oh my.

It just occured to me that this might be a case that O'Connor and Kennedy had in mind in their comments that they would be looking to foreign opinions in their rulings!

We should, of course, be bound by our treaties. But if the Court tries anything tricky on Guantanamo it runs the real risk of treading on the Constitutional foreign policy perogatives of the Senate. We just may see an impeachment in our lifetime if they do.

[oceanview]

there is another thread running on this.

I predict a flash point here. Bush will lose this case 5-4 (OConnor will flip). He will then have to decide to free the terrorists, or defy the court. This is going to be a mess.

[oceanview]

yup. the fix is in on this one, its a 5-4 win for the terrorists. the issue will come down to the ability of the court to enforce this order if Bush defies them.

[general_re]

I'll take that bet. I figure there's about a 75-80% chance the Court will affirm its previous decisions, about a 20-25% chance that it will act very narrowly to slightly restrict the executive's free hand in this area, and about a 0% chance that it will really rewrite previous doctrine and attempt to seriously restrict what the executive can and cannot do.

[Admin Moderator]

Please use the original title, if possible, when posting articles. It helps prevent duplicates.