Supreme Court rejects Padilla appeal

[zendari]

Text

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal by terrorism suspect Jose Padilla and avoided deciding whether
President George W. Bush can order Americans captured in the United States to be held in military jails without criminal charges or a trial.

By a 6-3 vote, the high court refused to hear Padilla's appeal. He was confined in a military brig in South Carolina for more than three years after Bush designated him an "enemy combatant."

The court's action does not amount to a ruling on the merits in the high-profile terrorism case and does not create any national precedent.

The case was affected by the Justice Department's decision to bring criminal charges against Padilla in November, after his attorneys appealed to the high court. The court sided with the department, which argued the new charges made the appeal pointless.

Padilla, a U.S. citizen who was transferred from military to civilian custody in Florida on January 5, has pleaded not guilty to charges of being part of a cell that provided money and recruits for terrorists overseas.

Padilla's appeal fell one vote short of the four needed for the Supreme Court to hear and decide a case.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice John Paul Stevens, cited the changed circumstances of Padilla's custody and wrote that he could bring a new challenge if the government again detains him as an enemy combatant.

Padilla attorney Andrew Patel expressed disappointment that the court decided against hearing the case but said he was heartened by Kennedy's comment.

"They seem to be saying, 'We're not going to take this one, but we are watching and we are not going to let this happen again'," Patel said.

Deborah Pearlstein of watchdog group Human Rights First said, "Justice Kennedy's opinion declining review made it clear that Mr. Padilla has a reasonable fear that his rights will be withdrawn again -- and if that happens, the courts should not hesitate to act."

The action marked the second time the court has avoided deciding Padilla's challenge to Bush's powers. In 2004, it ruled the case should have been brought in South Carolina instead of in New York.

Justices David Souter, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg voted to hear the appeal. Ginsburg wrote that the case raised a profoundly important issue.

"Although the government has recently lodged charges against Padilla in a civilian court, nothing prevents the executive from returning to the road it earlier constructed and defended," she said.

The criminal charges now pending against Padilla contain no reference to accusations made by U.S. officials after his arrest in May 2002 that he plotted with al Qaeda to set off a radioactive "dirty bomb" in the United States and blow up U.S. apartment buildings.

A U.S. appeals court also had said the belated decision to charge Padilla gave the impression the government was trying to avoid a high-court review of the case.

Last week, the court heard arguments on whether Bush has the power to create military tribunals for Guantanamo prisoners. A decision is expected by the end of June.




It's good to know that traitors and enemies of our nation can be dealt with appropriately for the defense of our nation.

 

[senseamp]

"Strict constructionists" duck and cover as expected. So the message to government is, it's OK to deny Americans their consitutional rights for years, as long as you restore them before the appeal reaches the USSC. Way to play doormat to the executive.

 

[NJDevil]

Wtf ... how can any true american be in favor of this? It's so ridiculously unamerican that it's hard to imagine anyone favoring holding US citizens in custody for this long w/o access to a lawyer/being charged.

Pathetic that you would support this Zendari.

 

[Lemon law]

The only consolation is that this was not the usual duck and cover by the chickenshits rides again SC--where they dismiss it out of hand on some technicality or stall for time--it does have that explicit warning to Bush that keep this stunt up and we will be forced to weigh in.

And then it will be plain to see by anyone that can read if the supremes can somehow decide that the US Constitution does not indeed say that this is plainly unconstitutional.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The only consolation is that this was not the usual duck and cover by the chickenshits rides again SC--where they dismiss it out of hand on some technicality or stall for time--it does have that explicit warning to Bush that keep this stunt up and we will be forced to weigh in.

And then it will be plain to see by anyone that can read if the supremes can somehow decide that the US Constitution does not indeed say that this is plainly unconstitutional.

Oh please. Right now they duck, doesn't mean they won't play dead when push comes to shove. Remember, Alito said it was OK for cops to shoot unarmed kids in the back when they run away, so unless he recently came to his senses, I would expect him to back the government.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: zendari
It's good to know that traitors and enemies of our nation can be dealt with appropriately for the defense of our nation.

zendari -- I have yet to figure out how any senient human being could take such a myopic view of so many large concepts.

If you're an American citizen, I hope YOU are the next one jailed for years without a warrant or any charges actually filed against you, and without access to any legal counsel, simply because some executive labels you an "enemy combatant." I'll be very interested in knowing your views.

Of course, if that happens, we may never know unless you find a way to smuggle your lame opinion out of whatever rat hole they shove you into. :roll:

You came here from some backwater dictatorship. Since you like that kind of government so much, you really should go back and leave the U.S. to real Americans.

 

[Rainsford]

Here is a quick hint for aspiring P&N posters...read your article before you post it. The rejection of the Padilla appeal is NOT a victory for Bush's approach of declaring and holding American citizens as enemy combatants without due process. Quite the opposite in fact. Read the following quote (from the article) and see if you can figure out what it means.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice John Paul Stevens, cited the changed circumstances of Padilla's custody and wrote that he could bring a new challenge if the government again detains him as an enemy combatant.

The dismissal of the charge is ONLY because he's no longer being held as an enemy combatant by the military, and instead has been officially charged for a crime and moved to civilian custody. If the circumstances every change, it seems likely that 6 justices (the original 3 from this time, plus those 3 mentioned above) would side with Padilla. While (as the article says), this case does not set precedent, it DOES reveal the mindset of the various justices on the Supreme Court. And from the various opinions published, it's pretty obvious that the only reason Bush didn't get beat like a drum is because Padilla is no longer being held as an enemy combatant without being charged.

 

[Jhhnn]

While the Court dodged the issue on a technicality, they nonetheless left the door open for the admin to act similarly in the future. Those actions won't be considered to be illegal until the Court rather plainly says they are. Basically, it's as if wife beating isn't a crime so long as you quit before it goes to court...

I recently learned that Padilla's attorneys can still file under this statute, however, which is what they could have done in the first place-

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=42&sec=1983

Much tougher for the Court to dodge the issue, hope that the Admin gets their act together.... As it is, in this and other cases, they're bending over backwards to give the admin whatever they want....

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
While the Court dodged the issue on a technicality, they nonetheless left the door open for the admin to act similarly in the future. Those actions won't be considered to be illegal until the Court rather plainly says they are. Basically, it's as if wife beating isn't a crime so long as you quit before it goes to court...

I recently learned that Padilla's attorneys can still file under this statute, however, which is what they could have done in the first place-

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=42&sec=1983

Much tougher for the Court to dodge the issue, hope that the Admin gets their act together.... As it is, in this and other cases, they're bending over backwards to give the admin whatever they want....

I don't know, maybe I'm reading too much, but it sounds like the court WANTS to slap the admin down, they just can't at the moment. The Supreme Court is not a normal court, they can't declare wife beating to be illegal. This is a much more complex issue, and they really can't make a decision until they have a case where their decision is based on an ongoing situation.

Don't get depressed because zendari lacks critical reading skills, in the world of legal battles, this is closer to a victory for civil liberties than it is a victory for Bush and police staters. Yes, the door is still open for the admin to do similar things in the future, but as soon as they do, the court has made it clear they WILL hear the case...and I think they've also indicated how they will decide. Rejecting the case on a technicality like this is different than rejecting it on the merits of the argument being raised. Had the court really wanted to shut the door on the issue, they could have rejected Padilla's argument on the grounds that his complaint is not a sound legal argument, rather than rejecting it because his situation has changed. I am not a lawyer, but my reading of the Roberts et all opinion is that at least two of the justices, and possibly Roberts himself as well, will joint the other 3 in supporting Padilla's argument...leaving the conservative section of the court (including the impressivly sheepish Scalia) coming up short.

Of course it's not exactly the same as a clear victory for civil liberties either, but Supreme Court decisions are rarely clear cut. Perhaps that's why people like zendari have such a hard time understanding them.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
While the Court dodged the issue on a technicality, they nonetheless left the door open for the admin to act similarly in the future. Those actions won't be considered to be illegal until the Court rather plainly says they are. Basically, it's as if wife beating isn't a crime so long as you quit before it goes to court...

I recently learned that Padilla's attorneys can still file under this statute, however, which is what they could have done in the first place-

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=42&sec=1983

Much tougher for the Court to dodge the issue, hope that the Admin gets their act together.... As it is, in this and other cases, they're bending over backwards to give the admin whatever they want....

I don't know, maybe I'm reading too much, but it sounds like the court WANTS to slap the admin down, they just can't at the moment. The Supreme Court is not a normal court, they can't declare wife beating to be illegal. This is a much more complex issue, and they really can't make a decision until they have a case where their decision is based on an ongoing situation.

Don't get depressed because zendari lacks critical reading skills, in the world of legal battles, this is closer to a victory for civil liberties than it is a victory for Bush and police staters. Yes, the door is still open for the admin to do similar things in the future, but as soon as they do, the court has made it clear they WILL hear the case...and I think they've also indicated how they will decide. Rejecting the case on a technicality like this is different than rejecting it on the merits of the argument being raised. Had the court really wanted to shut the door on the issue, they could have rejected Padilla's argument on the grounds that his complaint is not a sound legal argument, rather than rejecting it because his situation has changed. I am not a lawyer, but my reading of the Roberts et all opinion is that at least two of the justices, and possibly Roberts himself as well, will joint the other 3 in supporting Padilla's argument...leaving the conservative section of the court (including the impressivly sheepish Scalia) coming up short.

Of course it's not exactly the same as a clear victory for civil liberties either, but Supreme Court decisions are rarely clear cut. Perhaps that's why people like zendari have such a hard time understanding them.

The supreme court can do what ever it wants. There is no rule saying a case must be on going. If the court had a pair between the nine of them they should have dismissed any charges pending and let him go free.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Here is a quick hint for aspiring P&N posters...read your article before you post it. The rejection of the Padilla appeal is NOT a victory for Bush's approach of declaring and holding American citizens as enemy combatants without due process. Quite the opposite in fact. Read the following quote (from the article) and see if you can figure out what it means.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice John Paul Stevens, cited the changed circumstances of Padilla's custody and wrote that he could bring a new challenge if the government again detains him as an enemy combatant.

The dismissal of the charge is ONLY because he's no longer being held as an enemy combatant by the military, and instead has been officially charged for a crime and moved to civilian custody. If the circumstances every change, it seems likely that 6 justices (the original 3 from this time, plus those 3 mentioned above) would side with Padilla. While (as the article says), this case does not set precedent, it DOES reveal the mindset of the various justices on the Supreme Court. And from the various opinions published, it's pretty obvious that the only reason Bush didn't get beat like a drum is because Padilla is no longer being held as an enemy combatant without being charged.

If they wanted to punish or get at the administration they could have actually taken the case.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: zendari

If they wanted to punish or get at the administration they could have actually taken the case.

It's not their job to take cases to "punish or get at the administration" - that really would be judicial activism. This is a very conservative Court - why would they grant cert to prove a point to the White House anyway?

So Zen, what do you think about Tom DeLay?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: zendari

If they wanted to punish or get at the administration they could have actually taken the case.

It's not their job to take cases to "punish or get at the administration" - that really would be judicial activism. This is a very conservative Court - why would they grant cert to prove a point to the White House anyway?

You'd have to ask Mr. Rainsford here.

Tom Delay is an honorable man. God bless him.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Here is a quick hint for aspiring P&N posters...read your article before you post it. The rejection of the Padilla appeal is NOT a victory for Bush's approach of declaring and holding American citizens as enemy combatants without due process. Quite the opposite in fact. Read the following quote (from the article) and see if you can figure out what it means.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice John Paul Stevens, cited the changed circumstances of Padilla's custody and wrote that he could bring a new challenge if the government again detains him as an enemy combatant.

The dismissal of the charge is ONLY because he's no longer being held as an enemy combatant by the military, and instead has been officially charged for a crime and moved to civilian custody. If the circumstances every change, it seems likely that 6 justices (the original 3 from this time, plus those 3 mentioned above) would side with Padilla. While (as the article says), this case does not set precedent, it DOES reveal the mindset of the various justices on the Supreme Court. And from the various opinions published, it's pretty obvious that the only reason Bush didn't get beat like a drum is because Padilla is no longer being held as an enemy combatant without being charged.

If they wanted to punish or get at the administration they could have actually taken the case.

Pretty much what DonVito said...but I'd add that their job is to decide questions of constitutional law...period. If the question is no longer pressing (ie, Padilla's circumstances are change) what would they decide? They cannot do whatever they wish, if Padilla had remained in the circumstances that raised the case in the first place, THEN they would hear the case.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: zendari

If they wanted to punish or get at the administration they could have actually taken the case.

It's not their job to take cases to "punish or get at the administration" - that really would be judicial activism. This is a very conservative Court - why would they grant cert to prove a point to the White House anyway?

You'd have to ask Mr. Rainsford here.

Tom Delay is an honorable man. God bless him.

Tom Delay is a corrupt jackass...

But as for what DonVito will have to ask me, I suggest you re-read what I posted. I don't think the court "wants" to do anything...I think they declined to hear a matter they hold an opinion on because this particular case is not the one to decide the issue on.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Here is a quick hint for aspiring P&N posters...read your article before you post it. The rejection of the Padilla appeal is NOT a victory for Bush's approach of declaring and holding American citizens as enemy combatants without due process. Quite the opposite in fact. Read the following quote (from the article) and see if you can figure out what it means.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice John Paul Stevens, cited the changed circumstances of Padilla's custody and wrote that he could bring a new challenge if the government again detains him as an enemy combatant.

The dismissal of the charge is ONLY because he's no longer being held as an enemy combatant by the military, and instead has been officially charged for a crime and moved to civilian custody. If the circumstances every change, it seems likely that 6 justices (the original 3 from this time, plus those 3 mentioned above) would side with Padilla. While (as the article says), this case does not set precedent, it DOES reveal the mindset of the various justices on the Supreme Court. And from the various opinions published, it's pretty obvious that the only reason Bush didn't get beat like a drum is because Padilla is no longer being held as an enemy combatant without being charged.

If they wanted to punish or get at the administration they could have actually taken the case.

Pretty much what DonVito said...but I'd add that their job is to decide questions of constitutional law...period. If the question is no longer pressing (ie, Padilla's circumstances are change) what would they decide? They cannot do whatever they wish, if Padilla had remained in the circumstances that raised the case in the first place, THEN they would hear the case.

Are you saying the original 3 were incorrect in trying to force a non-pressing issue?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
While the Court dodged the issue on a technicality, they nonetheless left the door open for the admin to act similarly in the future. Those actions won't be considered to be illegal until the Court rather plainly says they are. Basically, it's as if wife beating isn't a crime so long as you quit before it goes to court...

I recently learned that Padilla's attorneys can still file under this statute, however, which is what they could have done in the first place-

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=42&sec=1983

Much tougher for the Court to dodge the issue, hope that the Admin gets their act together.... As it is, in this and other cases, they're bending over backwards to give the admin whatever they want....

I don't know, maybe I'm reading too much, but it sounds like the court WANTS to slap the admin down, they just can't at the moment. The Supreme Court is not a normal court, they can't declare wife beating to be illegal. This is a much more complex issue, and they really can't make a decision until they have a case where their decision is based on an ongoing situation.

Don't get depressed because zendari lacks critical reading skills, in the world of legal battles, this is closer to a victory for civil liberties than it is a victory for Bush and police staters. Yes, the door is still open for the admin to do similar things in the future, but as soon as they do, the court has made it clear they WILL hear the case...and I think they've also indicated how they will decide. Rejecting the case on a technicality like this is different than rejecting it on the merits of the argument being raised. Had the court really wanted to shut the door on the issue, they could have rejected Padilla's argument on the grounds that his complaint is not a sound legal argument, rather than rejecting it because his situation has changed. I am not a lawyer, but my reading of the Roberts et all opinion is that at least two of the justices, and possibly Roberts himself as well, will joint the other 3 in supporting Padilla's argument...leaving the conservative section of the court (including the impressivly sheepish Scalia) coming up short.

Of course it's not exactly the same as a clear victory for civil liberties either, but Supreme Court decisions are rarely clear cut. Perhaps that's why people like zendari have such a hard time understanding them.

The supreme court can do what ever it wants. There is no rule saying a case must be on going. If the court had a pair between the nine of them they should have dismissed any charges pending and let him go free.

The supreme court can't do whatever they want. The question isn't the charges against Padilla, it is the manner in which he was held (as an "enemy combatant" without due process). That was no longer the case as of this decision, and while they may or may not have the authority to rule on the matter (you'll have to ask an actual lawyer on that), I'm not sure the decision would have the same effect. At best, they could order the Bush administration to cease holding Padilla without charging or trying him...something that has already been done.

The concept here isn't to punish the Bush administration or free Padilla, it's to rule on the manner of his incarceration. Since that has been changed, I think another case would be the best time to hear the matter.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Here is a quick hint for aspiring P&N posters...read your article before you post it. The rejection of the Padilla appeal is NOT a victory for Bush's approach of declaring and holding American citizens as enemy combatants without due process. Quite the opposite in fact. Read the following quote (from the article) and see if you can figure out what it means.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice John Paul Stevens, cited the changed circumstances of Padilla's custody and wrote that he could bring a new challenge if the government again detains him as an enemy combatant.

The dismissal of the charge is ONLY because he's no longer being held as an enemy combatant by the military, and instead has been officially charged for a crime and moved to civilian custody. If the circumstances every change, it seems likely that 6 justices (the original 3 from this time, plus those 3 mentioned above) would side with Padilla. While (as the article says), this case does not set precedent, it DOES reveal the mindset of the various justices on the Supreme Court. And from the various opinions published, it's pretty obvious that the only reason Bush didn't get beat like a drum is because Padilla is no longer being held as an enemy combatant without being charged.

If they wanted to punish or get at the administration they could have actually taken the case.

Pretty much what DonVito said...but I'd add that their job is to decide questions of constitutional law...period. If the question is no longer pressing (ie, Padilla's circumstances are change) what would they decide? They cannot do whatever they wish, if Padilla had remained in the circumstances that raised the case in the first place, THEN they would hear the case.

Are you saying the original 3 were incorrect in trying to force a non-pressing issue?

Actually, yes, that is what I'm saying. As I've said many times, I'm not a lawyer, but I believe a better precedent would be set if the decision carried binding conditions for the administration. At best, the supreme court could only order that Padilla's status be changed to what it has already been changed to...formally charged and held by civillian authorities. I'm not even sure how a decision like that would work for the Supreme Court. It's not a case of charging the Bush administration with some sort of crime, it's about deciding the constitutionality of holding a US citizen as an enemy combatatant. If that is NOT the current situation, I'm not sure how the decision would work.

 

[WHAMPOM]

I cannot understand the logic of the court's refusal to hear the case. How can the turn over of Padilla to civil authority negate three years of possible illegal incarceration? Just how toady can this NEW court be?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
I cannot understand the logic of the court's refusal to hear the case. How can the turn over of Padilla to civil authority negate three years of possible illegal incarceration? Just how toady can this NEW court be?

As I understand it, the appeal was to remove Padilla from military custody, place him in civilian custody, and actually charge him with something. The government ended up doing all those things, so the appeal is not valid. At least that's the logic, as I understand it. That does not mean the issue of his potentially illegal incarceration will never be decided, or that the issue is resolved (it clearly isn't). It just means that within the framework of THIS particular appeal, the court doesn't think they can hear the case.

The Supreme Court isn't a bunch of crime fighting heroes, they have to follow the legal system. And what may seem obvious to the rest of us carries important legal considerations from their point of view. It may be a pain sometimes, but the alternative is the kind of system the Republicans want, where those in power can do whatever they want, whenever they want.

 

[1prophet]

Sixth ammendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.



Since when is three years speedy?

 

[Future Shock]

The GOOD NEWS here is Robert's joining that opinion to leave the door open to another challenge in the correct context...overall, I have to agree with Rainsford, Zendardi needed to really read this first to see the subtext of what was being said. This isn't bad news for freedom, just a good application of law. Padilla will be back I'm sure in a civilain context, and any other Padilla's now have notice given that to avoid a similar SC date the admin will have to try them...

The only people this sucks for is Padilla's lawyers, who now have to look to fight the case in civilian court, and then possibly re-apply to the Supremes...

Future Shock

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
I cannot understand the logic of the court's refusal to hear the case. How can the turn over of Padilla to civil authority negate three years of possible illegal incarceration? Just how toady can this NEW court be?

As I understand it, the appeal was to remove Padilla from military custody, place him in civilian custody, and actually charge him with something. The government ended up doing all those things, so the appeal is not valid. At least that's the logic, as I understand it. That does not mean the issue of his potentially illegal incarceration will never be decided, or that the issue is resolved (it clearly isn't). It just means that within the framework of THIS particular appeal, the court doesn't think they can hear the case.

The Supreme Court isn't a bunch of crime fighting heroes, they have to follow the legal system. And what may seem obvious to the rest of us carries important legal considerations from their point of view. It may be a pain sometimes, but the alternative is the kind of system the Republicans want, where those in power can do whatever they want, whenever they want.

:thumbsup: to someone for getting it. The doctrine is called 'standing', and if there's no longer an existing 'case or controversy' (read your U.S. Constitution, Article III), then they can't hear the case - the Court is forbidden from issuing advisory opinions, generally. Actually, I think this act of judicial self-restraint was commendable - I'm sure they were itching to hear the Padilla case. When was the last time those in power resisted the opportunity to seize more?

 

[Jhhnn]

Please, Mursilis, that spin is pretty disingenuous, given that the court rejected his case the first time on the basis that it had been filed in the wrong jurisdiction- even though the defendant had been moved to a secret location undisclosed to his attorneys.... a variation on the old shell game...

 

[jimkyser]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Please, Mursilis, that spin is pretty disingenuous, given that the court rejected his case the first time on the basis that it had been filed in the wrong jurisdiction- even though the defendant had been moved to a secret location undisclosed to his attorneys.... a variation on the old shell game...

But they filed in New York. He was never held in New York, as far as we know. Just picking New York becuase you're not sure where to file isn't an excuse. That said, I think the court was really happy to have the excuse. If you listened to the questioning, even Scalia seemed unconvinced the admin had the right to do what they were doing. The conservative wing of the court really didn't want to issue a ruling that made 'Bush, The Protector of Freedom' look like anything but that.