Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US top court to decide Guantanamo cases
Reuters ^ | 11/10/2003 | Reuters

Posted on 11/10/2003 1:15:12 PM PST by kkindt

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-24 last
To: Strawberry AZ
The whole of clause 2 states:

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.

The portion before the bold refers to the areas where the SC has original jurisdiction. The bold portion refers to the other cases previously mentioned - in Clause 1. The SC can have either original jurisdiction or appelate jurisdiction. Since this area is not mentioned in the area concerning original jurisdiction, it must be covered under the portion relating to appelate jurisdiction.

One would think that the SC cannot just reach out and hear the case without establishing its original jurisdictional claim.

21 posted on 11/10/2003 2:21:48 PM PST by Sgt_Schultze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
"We just may see an impeachment in our lifetime if they do. "

Should be: "We just may see an impeachment of a Supreme Court Justice in our lifetime if they do."

The Senate won't let the Supreme Court rewrite treaties- which IMO they would have to do to have jurisdiction. Heck, I think most of the Justices are aware of that.
Congress has written no law to give unlawful combatants any standing.

22 posted on 11/10/2003 2:25:24 PM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
WHat could happen - and the best scenario - is that the 5-4 court rules against Bush - then Bush appeals to the Senate to pass by majority vote that the Supreme Court DOES NOT have jurisdiction per this particular article in the Constitution and then set the precedent that the COngrees NOT The Supreme Court determines what jurisdiction it really has - this would be a great thing to happen and slap down the liberal court where it belongs.
23 posted on 11/11/2003 8:46:58 AM PST by kkindt (knightforhire.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: kkindt
Very simple. The detainees never touched U.S. Soil, so they do not get to use our U.S. Courts.

Refer to : The Supreme Court Ruling in 1950's Johnson vs. Eisentrager. 21 prisoners requested habeas corpus. They got denied. The U.S. courts had no jurisdiction. Even thought the federal courts appealed the Supreme Courts reversed the appeals "the privilege of litigation" did not extend to the 21 Germans, who had never been held on U.S. soil.

Sorry Supreme Court, you better talk to the United Nations in order to get jurisdiction.

Alternative, trial the detainees in the ICC.
24 posted on 01/06/2004 2:31:34 AM PST by Kafeen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-24 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson