noembed noembed

Commentary, sarcasm and snide remarks from a Florida resident of over thirty years. Being a glutton for punishment is a requirement for residency here. Who am I? I've been called a moonbat by Michelle Malkin, a Right Wing Nut by Daily Kos, and middle of the road by Florida blog State of Sunshine. Tell me what you think.

Monday, November 07, 2005

USSC to hear another case challenging military tribunals

AP reports today.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider a challenge to the Bush administration's military tribunals for foreign terror suspects, a major test of the government's wartime powers.

The case also presented the first conflict for new Chief Justice John Roberts.

Justices will decide whether Osama bin Laden's driver can be tried for war crimes before military officers in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. As an appeals court judge, Roberts joined a summer ruling against the driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan.

He did not participate in Monday's action, which put him in the difficult situation of sitting in judgment of one of his own rulings. Lawyers for Hamdan were expected to ask Roberts to participate in the case to avoid a 4-4 tie.

Two points on this case both in regards to Chief Justice Roberts' possible recusal from the case.

1- I don't see why the CJ has to recuse himself from the case because he heard it as a Appeals Court justice. If someone out there knows if this is a reason for recusal, please leave a comment.

2- Mr. Hamadan's lawyers wanting Roberts to participate if its a 4-4 tie. A case that goes to the USSC that ends in a 4-4 tie means the lower court decision is upheld. If CJ Roberts voted against Mr. Hamadan's case before, why would the attorney think there would be a change now? I think its a lawyer with symptoms of wishful thinking or an AP writer who doesn't know how the courts work.

Open Post- Don Surber

Listed on BlogShares