Supreme Indecision or Insightfulness?
By Denise Best | Related entries in In The News, Supreme CourtIs today’s rejection of an appeal from Jose Padilla a case of SCOTUS playing dodgeball?
A divided Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from Jose Padilla, held as an enemy combatant without traditional legal rights for more than three years, sidestepping a challenge to Bush administration wartime detention powers.
Padilla, a former Chicago gang member and a convert to Islam, was moved in January to Miami to face criminal charges, and the government argued that the appeal over his indefinite detention was now pointless.
Three justices said the court should have agreed to take up the case anyway: Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
And three other court members, including Chief Justice John Roberts, said that they would be watching to ensure Padilla receives the protections “guaranteed to all federal criminal defendants.”
Perhaps more like tightrope walking to ensure the Court does not overstep its bounds?
Justices are reviewing a second case arising from the government pursuit of terrorists, an appeal by a foreign terrorist suspect facing a military commission on war crimes charges at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Arguments were last week.
Padilla’s case was different. It asked the court to clarify how far the government can go when its hunt for terrorists leads to Americans in this country.
Based on the vote breakdown, it appears the court would have agreed to hear the appeal had Padilla not been charged.
“In light of the previous changes in his custody status and the fact that nearly four years have passed since he first was detained, Padilla, it must be acknowledged, has a continuing concern that his status might be altered again,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for himself, Stevens and Roberts. “That concern, however, can be addressed if the necessity arises.”
So, how do you view today’s Padilla appeal rejection?
Is it a demonstration of a well-balanced Court respecting constitutional boundaries?
or
An example of the denial of personal rights and freedoms?
Even though this is far from a black and white issue, I have a feeling that’s how much of the debate surrounding the decision will be portrayed.
This entry was posted on Monday, April 3rd, 2006 and is filed under In The News, Supreme Court. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 3rd, 2006 at 7:13 pm
The fact that there were several dissenting views, all basically saying the same thing, tells me that it was largely a case of the conservative-leaning majority going, “Eh, let’s ingore the problem for now, and hope everyone stops caring in the meantime.”
April 5th, 2006 at 11:13 am
Stevens and Kennedy are conservative? Since when?
I think the court did the only sane thing they could do with this. Kennedy laid it out pretty well in his opinion. It would have been a waste of everyone’s time for the court to take this one now.
April 5th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
So, then,
Is it saying that it is OK for the federal gov’t to hold an american citizen for 3yrs without charge and limitations to lawyer, so long as they deem them a terrorist- or enemy combatant, and then at the last minute charge him with a civil crime. Doesn’t this smell of unconstitutional? I don’t care what you think of padilla, and that it would never happen to a white christian conservative hillbilly in the michigan millitia (or should it?). This is America and even criminals and terrorists have rights under the constitution if they are citizens.
April 5th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
Unconstitutional? What’s unconstitutional about charging anyone at all, at any time, with a civil crime?
Of course he has rights. What right is being denied him at this time?
If the government drops the civil charges and decides he’s an enemy combatant again, now that would be underhanded. However, that possibility was also addressed in the opinion.
April 5th, 2006 at 4:13 pm
Brian,
you can not hold a citizen of the US for three years without charges. that was the point of the lawsuit in the first place. charging him for a crime is fine, that is not what’s at issue here. you can not just hold some one until the lawsuit gets the the supreme court, decide you’ll lose and switch the charges, regardless of what an EVIL individual you are. I think you’d feel differently if it was a friend or family member of yours being held. this group is testing the waters right now to see what they can will be allowed to get away with.