# Scalia Alito Thomas Bush: Form an orderly queue to suck my cock **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 30, 2006, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-alito-thomas-bush-form-an-orderly-queue-to-suck-my-cock/362736 "2006-06-30T07:18:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![DxZero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@DxZero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DxZero)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2006, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-alito-thomas-bush-form-an-orderly-queue-to-suck-my-cock/362736/61 "2006-07-02T05:57:58Z")
> [@DxZero](#): > > For **Hamden**? > > Because I’m looking at the decision and it definetely has Scalia listed as the writer of the dissent, with Alito and Thomas joining. Hamdan, rather. ---
**Author:** ![DxZero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@DxZero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DxZero)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2006, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-alito-thomas-bush-form-an-orderly-queue-to-suck-my-cock/362736/62 "2006-07-02T05:59:11Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Not that it matters all that much, but it was Thomas who wrote the dissent, not Scalia. Scalia concured, so we assume that he was OK with what was written. Ahh…they wrote seperate dissents. ---
**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:** [July 2, 2006, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-alito-thomas-bush-form-an-orderly-queue-to-suck-my-cock/362736/63 "2006-07-02T06:14:44Z")
> [@DxZero](#): > > Ahh…they wrote seperate dissents. No. Alito wrote a separate dissent, Scalia did not. ---
**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:** [July 2, 2006, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-alito-thomas-bush-form-an-orderly-queue-to-suck-my-cock/362736/64 "2006-07-02T06:23:30Z")
> [@DxZero](#): > > For Hamden? > > Because I’m looking at the decision and it definetely has Scalia listed as the writer of the dissent, with Alito and Thomas joining. You’re right, my bad. Scalia wrote a dissent, and so do Thomas and Alito. Sorry for the confusion. ---
**Author:** ![DxZero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@DxZero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DxZero)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2006, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-alito-thomas-bush-form-an-orderly-queue-to-suck-my-cock/362736/65 "2006-07-02T06:26:29Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > No. Alito wrote a separate dissent, Scalia did not. Am I misreading this then? [Hamdan v. Rumsfeld [PDF File]](http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf) Scalia’s part starts on page 103 of the file. ---
**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:** [July 2, 2006, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-alito-thomas-bush-form-an-orderly-queue-to-suck-my-cock/362736/66 "2006-07-02T06:57:55Z")
Anyway, let’s look at what Scalia means in the quote in the OP, as it’s not all that hard to figure out. If Congress passes a law that says “X”, by what authority does the court claim that the law does not say “X”. This has nothing to do with the constitution. Clearly the court can and does weigh in on whether “X” is constitutional or not. But that’s not what they’re doing in this case. They are simply trying to interpret that particular law-- the DTA. And the [DTA](http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/gazette/2005/12/detainee-treatment-act-of-2005-white.php) explicitly defines what court has jurisdiction over the detainees. It’s not some hidden inference, it says plainly that: > [@](#): > > Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider– > > `(1) an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; or > > `(2) any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention by the Department of Defense of an alien at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who– > > `(A) is currently in military custody; or > > `(B) has been determined by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant.'. > > (2) REVIEW OF DECISIONS OF COMBATANT STATUS REVIEW TRIBUNALS OF PROPRIETY OF DETENTION- > > (A) IN GENERAL- Subject to subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of any final decision of a Combatant Status Review Tribunal that an alien is properly detained as an enemy combatant. The problem with wading thru all this stuff is that both the plurality decision and the dissenting opinions all refer to earlier cases and what those case mean. I don’t have the inclination to backtrack thru all those earlier cases and see which justices are reading them “correctly” and which are not. I just don’t see anything unreasonable in Scalia’s dissent. And the OP doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about. I can guarantee you that he didn’t take the time to analyze what was written, he just let his knee jerk as it usually does. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2006, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-alito-thomas-bush-form-an-orderly-queue-to-suck-my-cock/362736/67 "2006-07-03T03:07:20Z")
I can understand the Thomas objection, but that law (cited by **John Mace** and central to this case) strikes me as ex post facto, no? The Guantanamo prisoners were mostly captured prior to the passage of it, and this law is stating that they have no right to _habeas corpus_ after the fact of their arrest. Which would be unconstitutional. BTW, anything anywhere that says\* habeas corpus \*only applies to US citizens? Or that anything else in the Constitution relating to rights should be construed that way? I would think it would apply to anyone falling under the USG’s jurisdiction, which is an entirely different thing. Just curious… ---
**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:** [July 3, 2006, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-alito-thomas-bush-form-an-orderly-queue-to-suck-my-cock/362736/68 "2006-07-03T04:42:09Z")
> [@pantom](#): > > I can understand the Thomas objection, but that law (cited by **John Mace** and central to this case) strikes me as ex post facto, no? The Guantanamo prisoners were mostly captured prior to the passage of it, and this law is stating that they have no right to _habeas corpus_ after the fact of their arrest. Which would be unconstitutional. I don’t think that is correct-- this law limits the jurisdiction of certain courts in the matter of _habeas corpus_, but does not deny that right outright. It basically sets up one court as the arbiter-- the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. I don’t believe that the law is _ex post facto_, because it does not speak to any specific infraction, but rather to the disposition of people already detained. But, the court’s decision was close to be along the lines of rejecting an _ex post facto_ statute, since it assume these few cases that were pending at the time of the legislation are not affected by that legislation. Scalia noted, however, that no court decision previous to this one had taken that position. ---
**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:** [July 3, 2006, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-alito-thomas-bush-form-an-orderly-queue-to-suck-my-cock/362736/69 "2006-07-03T04:45:24Z")
Let me add that the court’s assumption that this law does not apply to pending cases was based on the fact that the law did not explicilty say it was applicapble to pending cases, not on the constitutional provision against _ex post facto_ law. It’s clear that had the Congress been explicit about the law being applicable to pending cases that the court would not have ruled as it did. Hence, I don’t see this as an _ex post facto_ matter. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-alito-thomas-bush-form-an-orderly-queue-to-suck-my-cock/362736.md?page=3)