# Hamdan vs Rumsfeld: SCOTUS decision **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 29, 2006, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamdan-vs-rumsfeld-scotus-decision/362599 "2006-06-29T03:52:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamdan-vs-rumsfeld-scotus-decision/362599/1 "2006-06-29T03:52:21Z")
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will announce its decision in the case of [Hamdan vs Rumsfeld.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._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.](http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm#art3) ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamdan-vs-rumsfeld-scotus-decision/362599/2 "2006-06-29T14:52:30Z")
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… > **[CNN.com - High court blocks Gitmo military tribunals - Jun 30, 2006](http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/29/scotus.tribunals/index.html)** > > The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday strongly limited the power of the Bush administration to conduct military tribunals for suspected terrorists imprisoned at the U.S. Navy base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamdan-vs-rumsfeld-scotus-decision/362599/3 "2006-06-29T15:00:44Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamdan-vs-rumsfeld-scotus-decision/362599/4 "2006-06-29T15:09:45Z")
Roberts had ruled against Bush on the lower court, so if you’re looking for an ideological split here, it’s 6-3. ---
**Author:** ![yanceylebeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yanceylebeef/32/12290_2.png) [@yanceylebeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yanceylebeef)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamdan-vs-rumsfeld-scotus-decision/362599/5 "2006-06-29T15:14:29Z")
I’m pretty sure Roberts found for the Government…isn’t it how he got the job? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamdan-vs-rumsfeld-scotus-decision/362599/6 "2006-06-29T15:14:54Z")
So now we know Alito’s true colors. ---
**Author:** ![yanceylebeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yanceylebeef/32/12290_2.png) [@yanceylebeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yanceylebeef)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamdan-vs-rumsfeld-scotus-decision/362599/7 "2006-06-29T15:16:52Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamdan-vs-rumsfeld-scotus-decision/362599/8 "2006-06-29T15:18:38Z")
> [@yanceylebeef](#): > > I’m pretty sure Roberts found for the Government…isn’t it how he got the job? Yes, Roberts was a waterboy for Bush on this case when he was an appeals judge. ---
**Author:** ![yanceylebeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yanceylebeef/32/12290_2.png) [@yanceylebeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yanceylebeef)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamdan-vs-rumsfeld-scotus-decision/362599/9 "2006-06-29T15:22:08Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamdan-vs-rumsfeld-scotus-decision/362599/10 "2006-06-29T15:22:59Z")
> [@yanceylebeef](#): > > Nope, I was wrong. > … > CNN. 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](http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm) > [@](#): > > To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: > (d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamdan-vs-rumsfeld-scotus-decision/362599/11 "2006-06-29T15:25:44Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > So now we know Alito’s true colors. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamdan-vs-rumsfeld-scotus-decision/362599/12 "2006-06-29T15:27:46Z")
> [@yanceylebeef](#): > > 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. CNN got this wrong. Roberts ruled for the government in Hamdan. [From the NYT](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/29/washington/29cnd-scotus.html?_r=1&oref=login): > [@](#): > > 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. [From Wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Roberts_Jr.#U.S._Court_of_Appeals): > [@](#): > > In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Roberts was part of a unanimous panel overturning the district court ruling and upholding military tribunals set up by the Bush administration for trying terrorism suspects known as enemy combatants. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamdan-vs-rumsfeld-scotus-decision/362599/13 "2006-06-29T15:56:38Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamdan-vs-rumsfeld-scotus-decision/362599/14 "2006-06-29T15:58:37Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > 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. Yes, his recusal was because he was one of the 3 justices who heard the case being appealed to the SCOTUS. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamdan-vs-rumsfeld-scotus-decision/362599/15 "2006-06-29T16:03:16Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Unlike most of you guys, I don’t make my mind up in advace. You have a good point, John, but; > [@John Mace](#): > > I guess I shouild have known better than to expect reasoned responses from the crowd around here. …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. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamdan-vs-rumsfeld-scotus-decision/362599/16 "2006-06-29T16:03:49Z")
It looks like Anthony Kennedy is the one preventing the current court from devolving into reactionary insanity. ---
**Author:** ![spazattak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e8cbc/32.png) [@spazattak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spazattak)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamdan-vs-rumsfeld-scotus-decision/362599/17 "2006-06-29T16:06:32Z")
[Link](http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf) to the opinions of the court. ---
**Author:** ![spazattak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e8cbc/32.png) [@spazattak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spazattak)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamdan-vs-rumsfeld-scotus-decision/362599/18 "2006-06-29T16:09:14Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > It looks like Anthony Kennedy is the one preventing the current court from devolving into reactionary insanity. 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… ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamdan-vs-rumsfeld-scotus-decision/362599/19 "2006-06-29T16:10:21Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I guess I shouild have known better than to expect reasoned responses from the crowd around here. 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. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamdan-vs-rumsfeld-scotus-decision/362599/20 "2006-06-29T16:22:22Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > It looks like Anthony Kennedy is the one preventing the current court from devolving into reactionary insanity. 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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamdan-vs-rumsfeld-scotus-decision/362599.md?page=2)