This decision wasn’t decided on Constitutional grounds. Did you think otherwise?
I want to explore this a bit further with you. First, let’s assume that the Court has agreed that Article III of the GC applies. (I doubt that the court did decide that in this case, but let’s assume for the sake of argument that it did). The relavent part of that article is (emphasis added):
Now, let’s apply the same level of hyper-literal textualism to the terms “civilized” and “indespensible” that you applied to the term “desecration” in Pit thread on Flag Desecration, shall we? The Chinese are certainly civilized, so if I find some aspect of our court system that they find “dispensible”, then clearly that aspect isn’t “indespensible” to civlilzed peoples. In fact, let’s look at all the “civilized” countries and make a list of features that are lacking in their judicial system relative to what is found in the US in order to determine which features are “dispensible”. Do you find that line of reasoning ridiculous? Of course it is. However, that is exactly the type of judicial interpretation you were advocating in that other thread. Or does it only seem ridiculous when it produces an undesireable political outcome, but seems perfectly reasonable when it produces the desired result?
Hey, Thomas was appointed by Bush.
Yes, I know it was Bush41, not Bush43, but it is a true statement. 
Good point. But, the SDMB BBQ Pit is not a political arena. (GD . . . arguably.)
It is not a liberal/conservative issue. It’s law vs tyranny.
It just so happens that in this day and age American conservative = tyranny. However, that doesn’t mean that all opposition to tyranny=liberal. For example, I believe only a minority of liberals would countenance my views on the appropriate fate for Thomas, Scalia and Alito JJ.
I’m loving duffer’s faux pas. Douche. Sorry, I meant touché.
Anyway, conservative Americans, stop fucking about with tortuous legalese, trying to worm your way through loopholes. You’re running around in circles trying to weasel out of those of treaties to which your country has signed up, without any heed to the spirit of the law when your country signed up to it, and how what you’re doing looks to those outside.
Truth is, you look shit beyond belief. Guantanamo is a fucking great carbunkle on the face of a much loved friend. I hope this ruling is only the beginning of the end, and that the weaseling doesn’t mean your much-vaunted checks and balances are crumbling into mere lip-service.
The other way around
Remember, this is the Pit, not GD.
So . . . Yes, by all means! Federalist Society Dopers, come out, come out, wherever you are! (Puts on brass knuckles, tests switchblade.)
[QUOTE=Sevastopol]
ditto all other ‘conservative’ lawyers.
If that’s what Scalia thinks - I didn’t check for context yet - if that’s what he REALLY thinks, he should quit right now.
One of the main functions of the SC is to let the president and/or congress or both know when they have stepped over the line. That includes striking down unconstitutional laws and unconstituional “decrees”. It also includes contradicting the unitary decider from time to time. Otherwise, we don’t need a SC at all.
[QUOTE=SteveG1]
As I said before, this case was not decided on constitutional grounds. They were strcitly decided how the law should be interpreted, not whether or not it was constitutional. Scalia has often ruled that certain laws are unconstitutinoal, as he did in the case of the Flag burning law-- he ruled with the majority that it was unconstitutional.
He was talking sepcifically about the DTA, and how he interpretted it.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
I know that, but still that particular quote troubles me. Sometimes it is his job to contradict the president and/or the congress. Otherwise he is just a “blank check”.
[QUOTE=SteveG1]
That quote bothers me as well, but if it was in the proper context I could let it slide.
I still haven’t read the decision(guess I should do that now)
Sometimes I think Scalia just likes to be a little cranky and piss people off. I’ve learned to just accept it as part of his personality. Hey, even SCOTUS justices aren’t above being petty in certain instances.
Scalia the Troll -It fits.
[QUOTE=SteveG1]
Yes, and he has done that when he thinks it’s appropriate as I’ve already stated.
He’s very condescending, and does not suffer fools gladly. But anyone who thinks Scalia isn’t a brilliant legal scholar is nuts. The guy knows his stuff.
[QUOTE=DxZero]
Ok…read Scalia’s dissent(and it was kind of a weak one compared to others he’s written) and in context*, that statement is not particularly damning, but it certainly jumps out at the reader and will probably be an easy one to latch on to, should a similar issue arise in the future.
*Scalia was referring to the Court’s review of Presidental authority to use military force and extending that authority to detain individuals, which for some reason he doesn’t consider to be any of the Court’s business. He wasn’t talking about an overall deferment to any whim of the President not matter what the occasion; just when the President decides its neccesary in a time of war.
It kind of struck me as a half-hearted and foolish statement, and I can’t imagine that in future cases anyone will bother to cite it.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Oh I don’t disagree, but it always rubs me the wrong way when I see in a dissent where he spends half the time bad-mouthing his fellow justices. It just seems to lack professionalism or something similar. You rarely see someone like Rehnquist or Roberts or Thomas(when he actually writes a decision) do something like that.
[QUOTE=DxZero]
Well, when he was alive, obviously.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
I’m sincerely hoping that quote was either taken out of context, or something. If it was in regard to the government’s overall right to detain an enemy, then the gov certainly DOES have that right. The fight isn’t over that, it’s about the way it is done and how the detainees are treated - POW vs spy/saboteur vs ciminal vs a fourth “invented” category that gets none of the protections of the other groups.
That said, any comment (let’s assume just for now it was in context) that congress or the president should never be contradicted, would be wrong.
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.
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.