Comments on: Boumediene Argument Round-Up http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/12/boumediene-argument-round-up/ The Supreme Court of the United States blog Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:56:34 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Michael Leon http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/12/boumediene-argument-round-up/comment-page-1/#comment-13413 Michael Leon Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:58:09 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/boumediene-argument-round-up/#comment-13413 What I found revealing is Kennedy's asking of Clement what appeared to be a skeptical question on the administrative procedures implementing the Military Commissions Act (MCA): " ... Your position is that we (the U.S. Supreme Court) have no jurisdiction here," as the Congress and Executive branches have already spoken on the matter with the enactment of the MCA which bars federal courts from hearing detainee appeals, in what appears to be one very weak aspect of the Bush administration's case. The capacity of the Congress and Executive branch to simply declare that the U.S. Court system may not rule on a legislative act flies in the face of centuries of American jurisprudence. Will the SC rule they have no right to hear the case? No. Is the MCA an adequate substitue for habeas? Hard to see how Kennedy can say 'yes'. Funny how Justice Clarence Thomas, in keeping with his habits during oral arguments and what some observers see as a lack of legal curiosity, asked not a single question in this possible landmark case. ### What I found revealing is Kennedy’s asking of Clement what appeared to be a skeptical question on the administrative procedures implementing the Military Commissions Act (MCA): ” … Your position is that we (the U.S. Supreme Court) have no jurisdiction here,” as the Congress and Executive branches have already spoken on the matter with the enactment of the MCA which bars federal courts from hearing detainee appeals, in what appears to be one very weak aspect of the Bush administration’s case.

The capacity of the Congress and Executive branch to simply declare that the U.S. Court system may not rule on a legislative act flies in the face of centuries of American jurisprudence.

Will the SC rule they have no right to hear the case? No.

Is the MCA an adequate substitue for habeas? Hard to see how Kennedy can say ‘yes’.

Funny how Justice Clarence Thomas, in keeping with his habits during oral arguments and what some observers see as a lack of legal curiosity, asked not a single question in this possible landmark case.

###

]]>