Did Bush tell Fed Judges they could no longer hear Habeas Corpus

[maxrandb]

claims?

I was flipping through the channels, and caught this on the bottom ticker they run on C-Span for Capitol News. I immediately began surfing the channels and looking on the internet, but I can't find a story on this.

Were my eyes playing tricks on me, or is this the start of the great decline of American civilization?

[enough]

1. See this thread for today's WAPO article:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2571182

[Richard Steele]

2. Yes. Our laws are now officially MEDIEVAL...

...and no one may question the actions of King George.

[Subdivisions]

3. Yes. 196 HC cases at Gitmo were wiped out.

[no_hypocrisy]

4. Then how can the law be interpreted or subject to judicial

review? And if a federal judge accepted a habeas corpus case, would his/her action subject him/her to impeachment for judicial misconduct?

[Subdivisions]

5. Simple answer. There is no judicial jurisdiction. Period.

[rodeodance]

7. right --the new law does not allow courts to intervien.

[no_hypocrisy]

8. So, is this the FIRST law EVER that is not subject to judicial

review? And that only another act of Congress rescinding or modifying it is the only way to get rid of it?

[kestrel91316]

11. Sorry. No judicial review. People are SOL.

[rodeodance]

6. yup -before the ink was dry on the bill he signed.

[Schema Thing]

9. So did the Executive branch and the Legislative branch gang up

to make the judicial branch irrelevant?

[madmusic]

10. Does this include Jose Padilla?

Anyone know?

[MrCoffee]

12. No. Congress did.

[tom_paine]

13. Der Fuehrer has Unitary Fuehrerprinzip

Oh, and by the way...we are long past the start. This is the beginning of the end. Mid-transition phase, I would guess.

Bad things are going to start to happen to regular people soon, if previous nations like ours (Rome, Germany) are any indicator.

This will be accelerated if any kind of "triggering event" occurs which will allow them not to write new laws for they are pretty well fully Nazi-empowered, but which will allow them to change the way they enforce the law.

(i.e. doing what we all know they will eventually do, Nazi-style)

All the laws are in place. Kristallnacht and the rest are on the way. (though the details will be different)

[Gabi Hayes]

14. jesus....the courts will hear this. congress CAN't pass a law that

precludes courts from hearing it, even though can include language that says courts can't

that would be....unconstitutional!

it's called judicial review

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/marbury.html

[MrCoffee]

15. ummm...Congress can shut down all lower fed. courts if they want to.

The only court required by the Constitution is SCOTUS, and only for certain cases. All the rest were created by the Judiciary Act of 1789.

Congress can close every federal district and appellate court in the country if they want to.

[Gabi Hayes]

16. jesus.....Marbury vs. Madison

ever heard of it?

I asked you in that Enron/Lay thread: are you a lawyer?

[MrCoffee]

17. Marbury has nothing to do with the jurisdicition of the inferior courts

Marbury is about SCOTUS' constitutional mandate to interpret the laws. I am a lawyer. All lower federal courts are created by the legislature. There's only one "Constitutional" court, the Supreme Court.

ETA: Article III
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

[Gabi Hayes]

18. you made several pronouncements on that thread that were incorrect

and to suggest that congress will shut down the lower courts is, well, I'll let others be the judge when that's going to happen

that said, even if there are no other courts in existence, the SCOTUS becomes the court of first AND last resort; how does one GET to the SCOTUS if there aren't any other courts to begin with?

[MrCoffee]

19. your claim that congress can't restrict the jurisdiction of the lower cts

is flat out wrong. Congress can do whatever they want with the lower courts. Read the Constitution...the only judiciary REQUIRED by the Constituiton is the Supreme Court, and the ONLY jurisdicition SCOTUS has that is mandated by the Constituiton is:
Article III; Section 2:
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The appellate jurisdiciton of the Supreme Court was intended to extend to STATE, NOT FEDERAL courts. Marbury changed all that.

[Gabi Hayes]

20. I didn't say it couldn't, did I?

I said it wouldn't.

if it does, I'll be using my passport before that edict goes into effect

and, Marbury v. Madison isn't in the constitution, is it? that's where the precedent was set. do you think that the Roberts court is going to overturn this?



you aren't serious with this, are you?

Tell me you're not saying that in this case, NO COURT will hear an appeal of this particular legislation.

[MrCoffee]

22. i'm saying it's entirely plausible that a federal court could refuse

to hear the case, based on the text of the MCA. It would be simplicity itself to do so. The only authority to establish the jurisdiction of the lower courts is in Congress. Congress takes jurisdiction away from the judiciary ALL THE TIME. This is not a revolutionary idea.

Constitutionally, SCOTUS has very little to do. The framers didn't set SCOTUS up to be the court it is today. It was intended to be an appellate court for STATE COURT decisions that involved federal law. Marbury was a naked power grab by John Marshall, and he got away with it. John Marshall (through Marbury) singlehandedly rewrote the Constitution.

you said "congress CAN't pass a law that precludes courts from hearing it" - i read that to mean you said Congress couldn't pass a law...maybe i misread that.

[Gabi Hayes]

23. no problem with that last bit, and I totally agree with the way Marshall

got away with establishing judicial review (thank god)

so, what's the procedure likely to be when somebody decides to challenge this law?

if/when a lower court refuses to hear it, is that it? I know that when the SCOTUS refuses, that IS the end of the line, but what happens at lower levels?

[Crabby Appleton]

21. There is appellate review provided in law, but not through

a habeas motion

Copied and pasted from the MCA2006 (S.3930 Public law no. 109-366)

concerning appellate review of detainee status

SEC. 10. DETENTION COVERED BY REVIEW OF DECISIONS OF COMBATANT
STATUS REVIEW TRIBUNALS OF PROPRIETY OF DETENTION.
Section 1005(e)(2)(B)(i) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005
(title X of Public Law 109–148; 119 Stat. 2742; 10 U.S.C. 801
note) is amended by striking ‘‘the Department of Defense at Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba’’ and inserting ‘‘the United States’’

which amends this section copied and pasted from the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (public law 109-148)

(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.

(B) Limitation on claims.--The jurisdiction of the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit under this paragraph shall be limited
to claims brought by or on behalf of an alien--
(i) who is, at the time a request for review
by such court is filed, detained by the Department
of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and
(ii) for whom a Combatant Status Review
Tribunal has been conducted, pursuant to
applicable procedures specified by the Secretary
of Defense.

[Gabi Hayes]

24. thread on this. I see the difference now. holy mole sauce

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2443733&mesg_id=2443733