Shocker: Anthony Kennedy Angles for Approval of N.Y. Times Editorial Board, and Gets It
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a separate opinion in the Hamdan case today. He explained why in this passage from the opinion:
I join the Court’s opinion, save Parts V and VI–D–iv. To state my reasons for this reservation, to show my agreement with the remainder of the Court’s analysis by identifying particular deficiencies in the military commissions at issue, and to get quoted in a New York Times editorial, this separate opinion seems appropriate.
OK, so that quote is not entirely accurate. But it’s what he was thinking.
And guess what? He got his wish.
Sine I’m not registered with the Old Grey Foggy and don’t wish to go hunting for a universal login, I can only see the headline and the teaser. Which is enough. It’s not like it’s a surprise that the NYT thinks the privileges but not the responsibilities of American law should be bestowed on noncitizens. It’s just disheartening to see proof from their own pens as to how much they devalue U.S. citizens.
Anwyn (01a5cc) — 6/29/2006 @ 10:15 pmBugmenot suggests:
username: freedomsandwich
password: crappy
Give it a spin.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 6/29/2006 @ 10:25 pmBugmenot. That’s the one I knew was out there but would’ve had to go wake up a CA friend on a chat to get him to remind me what it was. Memory, swiss cheese, favorites list, yada. Thanks.
Anwyn (01a5cc) — 6/29/2006 @ 10:31 pmI realize the world is full of ‘what ifs,’ but had Arlen Specter not aided the Democrats in ‘borking’ Robert Bork, we would not be stuck with a half-wit like Anthony Kennedy.
After all, he was President Reagan’s ‘plan B.’
Naturally, I’m not ‘blaming’ Ronnie, as he was assured by people familiar with Kennedy that he was not inclined to legislate from the bench.
By the way, it’s interesting that Republican presidents often nominate people to the SCOTUS whom end up voting liberal on a regular basis (Warren, Brennan, Stevens, Blackmun, Kennedy, Souter) but I can’t think of a single nomination by a Democrat president in modern times who ended up voting solidly ‘conservative’ while on the SCOTUS.
Desert Rat (d8da01) — 6/29/2006 @ 10:42 pmWe did okay by White.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 6/29/2006 @ 10:44 pmThe Supreme Court held that these rules violate the standards Congress set in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which requires tribunals to offer the same protections, whenever practicable, as other military trials.
Now this is troubling. Actually, I can’t decide which is more troubling–if this is true, about the tribunals, or that I’m getting actual information out of an NYT editorial.
So, I hate to be the dumb kid in the room, but has anybody got a good site with some history/precedent of military trials? Does the U.S. *have* a history/precedent of military trials that aren’t ordinary UCMJ courts-martial of our own men?
Anwyn (01a5cc) — 6/29/2006 @ 10:46 pmAnwyn–
In a case the Supremes approved, several German agents that had infiltrated into the US were tried by tribunal during WW2 and executed.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 6/29/2006 @ 10:54 pmThank you. And I’m guessing, those tribunals did not conform to the UCMJ?
Anwyn (01a5cc) — 6/29/2006 @ 10:59 pmThe case is Ex Parte Quirin (1942), and yes, it was allowed under the old Laws of War, in a section that was carried over into the UCMJ. The current Court, however, decided that the precedent was insufficient without additional Congressional approval.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 6/30/2006 @ 12:01 amWhat makes you say that?
actus (6234ee) — 7/1/2006 @ 4:45 pm