(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to President Barack Obama's administration by declining to hear a challenge to a law that allows the U.S. military to indefinitely detain people believed to have helped al Qaeda or the Taliban.
The high court left intact a July 2013 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that journalists and others who said they could be detained under the law, did not have standing to sue.
The provision in question is part of the National Defense Authorization Act, which the U.S. Congress passes annually to authorize programs of the Defense Department.
It lets the government indefinitely detain people it deems to have "substantially supported" al Qaeda, the Taliban or "associated forces."
Supreme Court rejects hearing on military detention case | Reuters
Isn't it fantastic how the black robed lawyers just work so hard to defend the Constitution?
The Constitution doesn't apply to Enemy Combatants and their accomplices.
And, yes. It is great that they ruled this way.
The "ruling" was simply that they opted not to rule - how was that great?
I guess that makes "no comment" into a fantastic reply to a question.
The "ruling" was simply that they opted not to rule - how was that great?
I guess that makes "no comment" into a fantastic reply to a question.
The "ruling" was simply that they opted not to rule - how was that great?
I guess that makes "no comment" into a fantastic reply to a question.
(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to President Barack Obama's administration by declining to hear a challenge to a law that allows the U.S. military to indefinitely detain people believed to have helped al Qaeda or the Taliban.
The high court left intact a July 2013 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that journalists and others who said they could be detained under the law, did not have standing to sue.
The provision in question is part of the National Defense Authorization Act, which the U.S. Congress passes annually to authorize programs of the Defense Department.
It lets the government indefinitely detain people it deems to have "substantially supported" al Qaeda, the Taliban or "associated forces."
Supreme Court rejects hearing on military detention case | Reuters
Isn't it fantastic how the black robed lawyers just work so hard to defend the Constitution?
By not hearing the case, they defacto ruled in favor of the lower court ruling.
I quite agree. I think they were wrong in not tackling it, and that we should have rule of law, for everyone. I people misread who the Constitution applies to. it's not just rights, but responsibilities as well. It should govern our actions always.
Just reading from your post[I can't open the link] sounds like the district court ruled that the [injured] party that filed the lawsuit did not suffer any injury so did not have cause to file the suit.
the Supreme court concured whit the lower court's ruling.
If a journalist or other american is detain under this provision, than they have cause to sue...having suffered injury.
The Constitution doesn't apply to Enemy Combatants and their accomplices.
And, yes. It is great that they ruled this way.
The "ruling" was simply that they opted not to rule - how was that great?
I guess that makes "no comment" into a fantastic reply to a question.
Journalists and "associated forces" (whoever they are) are enemy combatants and accomplices? How about those who have wrongly been declared "enemy combatants" by fiat decree? Don't forget the Executive branch can declare anyone an enemy combatant, including a US citizen, without the benefit of the judiciary and due process.
It was not a "no comment".
It was an agreement with the lower court ruling.
I anticipate a whiny little response along the lines of: "well whyyy don't they sayyyy they agree". The answer is that the lower court ruling was so obviously correct that it doesn't need any further explanation.
By reading the lower court's opinion.How could SCOTUS know if it was correct or not, never mind "obviously", without deliberation (i.e. examining the facts and issues)?
The way I understand it, a US Citizen still has Habeas Corpus. The lower court ruling didn't change that.
By reading the lower court's opinion.
I don't see how someone who is being detained under this NDAA provision has access to petition for Habeas Corpus without the benefit of counsel and access to any court of law. So no, I don't believe anyone detained under this provision can file a petition for Habeas Corpus in practice.
It was not a "no comment".
It was an agreement with the lower court ruling.
I anticipate a whiny little response along the lines of: "well whyyy don't they sayyyy they agree". The answer is that the lower court ruling was so obviously correct that it doesn't need any further explanation.
Every step of the judicial process is an examination of the facts and issues. You don't expect each appellate level to conduct hearings on each appeal, do you?A reading is not the same as an examination of the facts and issues. How do you even know any reading took place?
Then I guess that you really liked the SCOTUS CA prop 8 ruling; if the state alone refuses to argue that a ballot initiative, that passed by a majority vote, is valid then it is not. In other words, the voter's wishes can be overruled by the lack of cooperation of their own gov't - the very reason that an initiative was tried in the first place. That was a classsic "no comment" indeed.
Every step of the judicial process is an examination of the facts and issues.
You don't expect each appellate level to conduct hearings on each appeal, do you?
I don't know what the percentages are down the line, but the US Supreme Court gets about 10,000 appeals a year, but hears only 75-80 of them.
This is untrue. The right to appeal may be a due process requirement, but the right to an appellate hearing is not.Or so it's supposed to be. In practice however ....
Not doing so violates the doctrine of due process.
I will have to read the case mentioned by Wiki (Missouri v Jenkins) for myself before I agree that it applies universally. In the case we are discussing the issue is whether or not appellant has standing to sue. It would seem to be both circular and derelict to deny certeriori to an appellant who does have standing.This is about the Supreme Court though, not any other appellate level. Failure to conduct hearings does not mean agreement that "the lower court ruling was so obviously correct" as you put it. It only means exactly that, the Supreme Court did not want to grant the petition for a Writ of Certiorari. So you are incorrect sir.
"the Supreme Court's denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari is sometimes misunderstood to mean that the Supreme Court approves the decision of the lower court."
Certiorari - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Then you have not thought carefully enough about the numbers.Thanks I'm fully aware of the statistics.
(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to President Barack Obama's administration by declining to hear a challenge to a law that allows the U.S. military to indefinitely detain people believed to have helped al Qaeda or the Taliban.
The high court left intact a July 2013 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that journalists and others who said they could be detained under the law, did not have standing to sue.
The provision in question is part of the National Defense Authorization Act, which the U.S. Congress passes annually to authorize programs of the Defense Department.
It lets the government indefinitely detain people it deems to have "substantially supported" al Qaeda, the Taliban or "associated forces."
Supreme Court rejects hearing on military detention case | Reuters
Isn't it fantastic how the black robed lawyers just work so hard to defend the Constitution?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?