Comments on: Detainees resist limits on court review http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/detainees-resist-limits-on-court-review/ The Supreme Court of the United States blog Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:56:34 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Kent Scheidegger http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/detainees-resist-limits-on-court-review/comment-page-1/#comment-8719 Kent Scheidegger Fri, 27 Jan 2006 20:10:40 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/detainees-resist-limits-on-court-review/#comment-8719 I am delighted that the scholars implicitly agree with my contention of long standing that the Suspension Clause guarantees the writ as it existed at common law. I wonder if they, too, will be called Nazis and other words I won't post here as a result. I am delighted that the scholars implicitly agree with my contention of long standing that the Suspension Clause guarantees the writ as it existed at common law.

I wonder if they, too, will be called Nazis and other words I won’t post here as a result.

]]> By: icculus http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/detainees-resist-limits-on-court-review/comment-page-1/#comment-8718 icculus Fri, 27 Jan 2006 03:23:52 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/detainees-resist-limits-on-court-review/#comment-8718 Well, from what I remember, the core disputed issue in Rasul centered over the jurisdictional scope of habeas review and whether it reached parties designated enemy combatants captured outside the United States and subsquently held at Guantanamo Bay. This should definitly be an interesting opinion to read when it comes down. What peaks my interest the most is the amicus brief's strong case for their intepretation of common law habeas review and its potential impact on Justice Scalia's and Thomas's vote and opinion if written. Considering their fondness for both the common law and originalism, will this perhaps lead them to strike down the DTA? I definitly can imagine a concurring opinion by Justice Thomas joined by Justice Scalia making such a case. Well, from what I remember, the core disputed issue in Rasul centered over the jurisdictional scope of habeas review and whether it reached parties designated enemy combatants captured outside the United States and subsquently held at Guantanamo Bay. This should definitly be an interesting opinion to read when it comes down. What peaks my interest the most is the amicus brief’s strong case for their intepretation of common law habeas review and its potential impact on Justice Scalia’s and Thomas’s vote and opinion if written. Considering their fondness for both the common law and originalism, will this perhaps lead them to strike down the DTA? I definitly can imagine a concurring opinion by Justice Thomas joined by Justice Scalia making such a case.

]]> By: rodgerlodger http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/detainees-resist-limits-on-court-review/comment-page-1/#comment-8717 rodgerlodger Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:34:00 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/detainees-resist-limits-on-court-review/#comment-8717 The scholars brief takes for granted "habeas corpus" in Article I is the same habeas corpus that apparently was available to enemy aliens in Old England, if it was available to those held outside the country. Isn't this a substantial issue that was finessed in Rasul? The scholars brief takes for granted “habeas corpus” in Article I is the same habeas corpus that apparently was available to enemy aliens in Old England, if it was available to those held outside the country. Isn’t this a substantial issue that was finessed in Rasul?

]]>