2/20    D.C. Cir. upholds law stripping the federal cts of the power to hear
        habeas claims from prisoners in Guantanamo Bay:
        http://preview.tinyurl.com/26ssw8 (miami.com - miami herald)
        link:preview.tinyurl.com/ynmz8x (pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov - decision)
        \_ Really sad to watch our civil liberties stripped away. I hope
           the USSC will overturn this.
           \_ GITMO is not on mainland US.  Much like how Taiwan is
              not China.
              \_ Neither is fucking hawaii, dumbshit.  But other than your
                 poor choice of words, permanent residents can fall under
                 the same danger if the president just decides he wants to
                 imprison, torture, even execute them.  No charges needed,
                 no recourse.  If the USSC does not overturn this, they're
                 not worth the wood for their chairs.
                 not worth the wood for their bench.
                 \_ Ha, I got you!
                    \_ http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/3131/nocontestsb1.jpg
                       \_ What the heck was the point of that picture?  -!pp
           \_ Well, it is unclear if the USSC can overturn the decision b/c
              the decision is really that the court has no power to hear a
              habeas claim from persons w/in a particular class. The 2d part
              of the decision is that for these particular people, no habeas
              right existed at common law, thus Congress hasn't suspending
              the writ - that may be reviewable, but I doubt it.
              The issue here is whether Congress has constitutionally used
              its Art 3, Sec. 1 and Art. 3, Sec. 2, Cl. 2 powers to determine
              the original/appellate jurisdiction of the lower federal courts
              (district courts and appeals courts) and the appellate jx of
              the USSC.
              Congress seems to have done everything correctly except possibly
              one thing - Congress may have prescribed a rule of decision in
              a pending case, which is unconstitutional. But, the problem is
              that it is unclear whether it is unconstitutional to prescribe
              a rule of decision in a pending case before the USSC or if it
              unconstitutional to prescribe a rule of decision in a pending
              case before any federal court.
              If the unconstitutional act is prescribing a rule of decision
              in case pending before the USSC, then Congress has acted cons-
              titutionally b/c there were no pending habeas cases before the
              USSC at the time the MCA was enacted.
              The hope must be that the constitutional violation occurs when
              a rule of decision is prescribed in a case pending before any
              federal court. It is unclear if this is true.
              The one other option is that that the USSC some how finds that
              Art. 3, Sec. 2, Cl. 2 gives the USSC original jurisdiction over
              habeas claims. From Marbury we know that the USSC's original
              jurisdiction cannot be altered w/o constitutional amendment,
              thus if the MCA takes away part of the USSC original jx, it
              would be unconstitutional.
              This option is no option at all b/c the USSC is not prepared
              or able to hear habeas pleas in the thousands of cases that
              can be filed.
              One other thing might happen in this case, the DC Cir. might
              re-hear the case en-banc and reverse. That is probably more
              likely than the USSC accepting and reversing the case.