C’mon, he’s in his seventies; you could probably take him.
Gimme a call, I can set you up with a promoter who can get you on the undercard at the Garden.
And he can’t raise his arms above his shoulders. Just throw wild haymakers at his head.
I find it very unusual for Bricker to disagree with an opinion of Scalia’s. Scalia is a brilliant and technical legal mind.
I also find this dissenting opinion of Scalia’s to be very unlike him.
IMHO, the majority reached the right result, but on the wrong ground. What they should have held, I think, is that habeas is a check on the power of the government, not merely a right of the person detained. Notably, the Court’s jurisdiction over the government is clear. Under my approach, it wouldn’t matter whether the government acted on non-US soil or with respect to non-US citizens. If the power of the federal government is brought to bear, whether that power is exercised lawfully is legitimately raised by a petition for the writ.
He may be be in possession of a “brilliant and technical legal mind,” but too often–FAR too often–he suspends its activity in order to shill for his preferred political loyalties.
His dissent in this case was, in my opinion, a perfect example.