Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26

Thread: Supreme Court rejects hearing on military detention case

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Last Seen
    11-11-15 @ 03:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,523

    Supreme Court rejects hearing on military detention case

    (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?

  2. #2
    Preserve Protect Defend
    Beaudreaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Covfefe, NC
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 05:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,566

    Re: Supreme Court rejects hearing on military detention case

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob0627 View Post
    (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.
    Everything in your life is a reflection of a choice you have made. If you want a different result, don't blame someone else, or expect others to make a change, you should stop complaining and make a different choice. Remember, the circumstances of your birth don't determine the outcome of your life.

  3. #3
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,688

    Re: Supreme Court rejects hearing on military detention case

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaudreaux View Post
    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 reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  4. #4
    Dungeon Master
    Chicks dig the long ball

    azgreg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,139

    Re: Supreme Court rejects hearing on military detention case

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    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.
    Sometimes it's the best reply.
    I have CDO, it's like OCD but the letters are in alphabetical order like they should be.

  5. #5
    Preserve Protect Defend
    Beaudreaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Covfefe, NC
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 05:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,566

    Re: Supreme Court rejects hearing on military detention case

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    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.
    By not hearing the case, they defacto ruled in favor of the lower court ruling.
    Everything in your life is a reflection of a choice you have made. If you want a different result, don't blame someone else, or expect others to make a change, you should stop complaining and make a different choice. Remember, the circumstances of your birth don't determine the outcome of your life.

  6. #6
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Supreme Court rejects hearing on military detention case

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    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.
    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.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  7. #7
    Guru
    1750Texan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Southcental Texas
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 02:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,569

    Re: Supreme Court rejects hearing on military detention case

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob0627 View Post
    (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?
    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.
    Last edited by 1750Texan; 04-30-14 at 05:38 PM.


  8. #8
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,688

    Re: Supreme Court rejects hearing on military detention case

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaudreaux View Post
    By not hearing the case, they defacto ruled in favor of the lower court ruling.
    Does that make sense to you? You have no standing to challenge a US law because you are a US citizen? It seems the court thinks that only AFTER you are held indefinitely without charges, without any legal council and denied ever having a trial that you may complain; in other words, only those unable to complain may complain.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  9. #9
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,688

    Re: Supreme Court rejects hearing on military detention case

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    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.
    Yep. The federal gov't has enumerated powers that now seem to include declaring you beyond the constitution because they simply say so.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Last Seen
    11-11-15 @ 03:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,523

    Re: Supreme Court rejects hearing on military detention case

    Quote Originally Posted by 1750Texan View Post
    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.
    Which means that they have the right and can sue if and when they're released from indefinite detention, which could be when they die of old age.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •