Hamdan vs Rumsfeld: SCOTUS decision

Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will announce its decision in the case of Hamdan vs Rumsfeld.

I’m openning this thread to debate not just the rulling, but what it tells us about the Roberts court. Roberts has recused himself, but we know where he stands since he was part of the appleate court’s decision that the SCOTUS is rulling on.

There are two main issues being addressed:

  1. Are the military tribunals set up by the Bush administration have been authorized by Congress by the AUMF resolution(s).

  2. Do the Gitmo detainees designated as illegal combatants have rights as POWs under artilce III of the 1949 Geneva Convetion.

Here’s a link to CNN Coverage. Looks like SCOTUS ruled against Shrub on the tribunal issue. Hoping to have time to find more detail later today…

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/29/scotus.tribunals/index.html

Justice Anthony Kennedy joined John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and David Souter in the majority. Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented. Chief Justice John G. Roberts did not participate in the decision.

No real suprises.

Roberts had ruled against Bush on the lower court, so if you’re looking for an ideological split here, it’s 6-3.

I’m pretty sure Roberts found for the Government…isn’t it how he got the job?

So now we know Alito’s true colors.

Nope, I was wrong.

“Chief Justice John Roberts did not participate in the Hamdan case. He had ruled against the government last year when the case was argued in a lower federal appeals court.” CNN.
I hearby withdraw my snark.

Yes, Roberts was a waterboy for Bush on this case when he was an appeals judge.

Damn, I should have known better than to rely on just one sourch. CNN got it wrong, Roberts did side with the Government

“The vote was split 5-3, with moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joining the court’s liberal members in ruling against the Bush administration. Chief Justice John Roberts, named to the lead the court last September by Bush, was sidelined in the case because as an appeals court judge he had backed the government over Hamdan.” NY Times.

Nope CNN is wrong. You were right. Reinstate the snark.
Article 3 of the Geneva convention here:
Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

He still has a chance to show he’s not just a second sock puppet for Scalia’s other hand. He passed up the opportunity this time, though.

I read the same CNN story. Either CNN or the NYT is wrong - is anybody sure?

Roberts’ refusal wouldn’t have been because of the way he’d voted, but because of his earlier participation in the case, as I understand it.

CNN got this wrong. Roberts ruled for the government in Hamdan.
From the NYT:

From Wiki:

I guess I shouild have known better than to expect reasoned responses from the crowd around here. Not one post so far has addressed the actual issues, just name calling and Bush-bashing. Might as well move this to th Pit.

I’ll be back when I have a chance to read the actual opinion. Unlike most of you guys, I don’t make my mind up in advace.

Yes, his recusal was because he was one of the 3 justices who heard the case being appealed to the SCOTUS.

You have a good point, John, but;

…certainly suggests you’d made up your mind in advance as to what to expect; how does that differ from what’s going on here? And then your expectations (that there would be reasoned debate) changed as more information came in, causing you to change your opinion; again, that’s what’s happening here.

It looks like Anthony Kennedy is the one preventing the current court from devolving into reactionary insanity.

Link to the opinions of the court.

Just on a quick perusal it seems that Alito puts alot of trust in the executive and military to do things ‘correctly’. If thats the case one could argue whats the need for the judiciary…

Oh bullshit. We’ve been debating this issue for years on this board. The only thing that’s new here is that a majority of Supreme Court Justices are now on record affirming the opinion of those of us who’ve been saying all along that Bush and Rumsfeld’s actions wrt Gitmo are in violation of national and international law.

Once Alito was confirmed, it was pretty obvious that Kennedy would almost never be on the losing end of a vote, until the Court’s composition changed again.

Here’s hoping Bush doesn’t get the chance to appoint a third Justice.