Thursday, June 29, 2006

Hamdan Finally Wins

in the United States Supreme Court.

I have yet to read the decision, but promise to give a full accounting soon...

Posted by Jabawacefti


At 3:10 PM, Blogger codemorse said...

One might also say that Justice wins. Or due process.

Yay, "conservative" Supreme Court!

At 6:34 PM, Blogger Jabawacefti said...

You should probably read the decision before you determine that anyone "wins." Results driven judicial decisions are, frankly, antithetical to our entire democracy.

At 1:15 AM, Blogger codemorse said...

I would, but you're already so good at it. :)

I've long argued that the President needs to go to Congress for this sort of authorization, so in that sense, it is a win.

Whether the decision itself makes sense? Illuminate us all with the power of your mind, my friend.

At 1:35 AM, Blogger codemorse said...

Justice Clarence Thomas refers to Justice John Paul Stevens’ “unfamiliarity with the realities of warfare” in his dissenting opinion. ACSBlog notes: “Stevens served in the U.S. Navy from 1942 to 1945, during World War II. Thomas’s official bio, by contrast, contains no experience of military service.”

Interesting. Does Thomas refer to Stevens this way?

It would seem to continue a trend of those with no real experience in combat attempting to denigrate those that do, despite having never set foot on the battlefields they refer to.

At 7:55 AM, Blogger Jabawacefti said...

Even a cursory read of the Thomas' dissent (not by you, but by whoever wrote it that quote) would recognize that as a complete non-sequitur and irrelevant.

For one, I haven't read the entire dissent yet, but he never refers to Stevens' personal miliary service. He's talking about the realities of the history of warfare.

Second, it is of no moment that Stevens served in the military as it relates to his judicial opinion. What is relevant in this case is the historical context of military tribunals. May if he helped form a tribunal then his military service would be relevant. Otherwise, it's a poor formed smokescreen of irrelevant legitimacy.

That is what bothers me most about laypeople interpreting Supreme Court decisions (with respect to all non-lawyers), when they pull this crap.

The judiciary serves a higher purpose than ruling in one's favor. Because nothing will constrain that judiciary from ruling against you in the next instance.

At 8:00 PM, Blogger codemorse said...

Right, but doesn't that sound kind of silly coming out of Clarence Thomas' mouth?

If he is referring to the history of warfare (and you're right, I haven't read the decision, that quote was read on some guy's blog) it still comes off as ridiculously presumptuous to me. Especially in light of the fact that Thomas has no history with warfare.

Isn't that sort of like saying that a guy who's spent three years working on a difficult mathematical proof doesn't understand the history of mathematics, while simulataneously admitting that you have no practical experience in mathematics?

It's a small point, so I guess my question is more rhetorical than anything else. But irrelevant? Why bother to include it, and read it directly from the bench, if it's irrelevant? Thomas thought it was important enough to include in a judicial opinion. Doesn't that make it important enough to discuss when examining that opinion?

Not from a legally interpretive POV, but in an effort to understand the "whys" of judicial decision-making?


Post a Comment

<< Home