• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court rejects hearing on military detention case

Bob0627

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2014
Messages
4,523
Reaction score
1,345
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
(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?
 
(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 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. ;)

Sometimes it's the best reply.
 
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.
 
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.
 
(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 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
The Constitution doesn't apply to Enemy Combatants and their accomplices.

And, yes. It is great that they ruled this way.

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.
 
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. ;)

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.
 
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.

The way I understand it, a US Citizen still has Habeas Corpus. The lower court ruling didn't change that.
 
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.

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.

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.
 
By reading the lower court's opinion.

A reading is not the same as an examination of the facts and issues. How do you even know any reading took place?
 
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.

Maybe not. Maybe yes. It's a good question to find the answer.

The NDAA also has a lot more goodies in it that I don't like though. Like that the President can unilaterally declare war. Even though the Constitution and the War Powers Act say otherwise. That one hasn't made it to the SCOTUS yet.
 
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.

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.
 
A reading is not the same as an examination of the facts and issues. How do you even know any reading took place?
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. See link:

US Supreme Court FAQ
 
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.

I don't know enough about the case to say whether I agree with the CA SC or not- I certainly do not agree with all court rulings.
 
Every step of the judicial process is an examination of the facts and issues.

Or so it's supposed to be. In practice however ....

You don't expect each appellate level to conduct hearings on each appeal, do you?

Not doing so violates the doctrine of due process. 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

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.

Thanks I'm fully aware of the statistics.
 
Or so it's supposed to be. In practice however ....

Not doing so violates the doctrine of due process.
This is untrue. The right to appeal may be a due process requirement, but the right to an appellate hearing is not.



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
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.



Thanks I'm fully aware of the statistics.
Then you have not thought carefully enough about the numbers.

If the USSC had to hear each case then it would not be able to devote an average of even one hour to each one even if it worked 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
 
(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?

'Ya know, I gave Bush hell when he was doing crap like this, but Obama turned out to be Bush on steroids. He should be impeached.
 
Why do people want to give rights to those that would slaughter all of us typing here if they had the chance? These people aren't Americans, aren't good people period, who cares if they rot in Gitmo??
 
Back
Top Bottom