US Supreme Court refuses to hear Guantanamo case

[kpete]

Source: AFP


US Supreme Court refuses to hear Guantanamo case
AFP

US Supreme Court refuses to hear Guantanamo case AFP/File – A view of the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC. The US Supreme Court refused Monday to consider the …
2 hrs 51 mins ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The US Supreme Court refused Monday to consider the case of a Yemeni detainee held at Guantanamo Bay despite a lower court order for his release.

Without giving an explanation, the Supreme Court said it would not take up the case of Yasin Muhammed Basardh, who was ruled innocent of terrorism charges by a US court some six months ago but remains incarcerated at Guantanamo.

Basardh's lawyers sought to attach his case to that of a group of seven Chinese ethnic Uighur prisoners at Guantanamo, who are asking the court to order their release into the United States.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091102/pl_afp/usguantanamoattacksjusticeprison

[harun]

1. Another weak decision from the Supreme's.

[Better Today]

2. Without giving an explanation. . . that just sucks.

[avaistheone1]

14. The Supremes should at least have to give an explanation.

I really deeply disappointed in this court and sickened.

[Flaneur]

3. Wow, justice in America is sucking pretty bad these days.

[Downwinder]

4. So, the lower court ruling stands.

Lets see if they free him. Gives new meaning to "Man without a Country."

[POAS]

12. That's my take!

If the order stands then he "must" be released. "Must" in quotes because nothing is certain anymore!!!

[BunkerHill24]

5. Question: Who decides which cases heard or not heard at the SC

how does it work?

[harkadog]

10. Four of the nine Justices must decide to hear a case.

There are a few cases that are required to be heard legally or constitutionally but those are rare.

[BunkerHill24]

13. Thanks for the answer, much appreciated

I always thought it would take a majority of justices to decide. But in this case, and many other cases, we don't hear reasoning behind why they would refuse to hear particular case.

[harkadog]

18. Normally the Justices don't give reasons for refusing to hear a case.

The court is faced with about 10,000 appeals each year and usually accepts less than 1% of them -- typical year about 80. If the Justices gave the reasons why they didn't hear the other 99% that's all they would have time to do. On rare occasions a Justice who has strong feelings about a case that the court is not going to hear will issue a 'dissent' giving his/her reasons why they thought the case should be heard. That is not common however.

[BunkerHill24]

20. Again, thank you...

But do you suppose no justices (mainly the so-called liberals) had thought of this particular case had merit? And I understand if you don't want to answer this one.

[harkadog]

21. Difficult to say

Up to three of the four 'liberal' justices could have wanted to hear the case and that would not have been enough. The reasons to hear or not hear a case are sometimes complicated and have nothing to do with ideology. Also sometimes justices will vote not to hear a case because they think their position will lose and they don't want that precedent set.

[BunkerHill24]

23. I understand...and once again, thank you...n/t

[Solly Mack]

6. K&R

[optimator]

7. sick

without explanation.....

[Kurovski]

8. K&R. (nt)

[defendandprotect]

9. Remember that the Repugs tried to IMPEACH liberal Justices ...Warren, Douglas ... and ...

who was the third one? Can't remember at the moment?

Oh, began with an /F/ -- in fact, they created a scam and blackmailed him into

resigning.

[strategery blunder]

11. Abe Fortas? n/t

[defendandprotect]

15. Yep . . .thank you!!

[strategery blunder]

17. You're welcome

:)

[defendandprotect]

19. Btw, I had never heard that story about Fortas until yesterday . . .

Came across this handy-dandy-link . . . Fortas report is about 1/4 way down --

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?printerfriendly=true&timeline=nixon_and_watergate_tmln&startpos=0

------------------------------------------------------------------------



May 14, 1969: Fortas Resigns from Supreme Court Due to ‘Ugly Bluff’ by Nixon Justice Department

Abe Fortas.
Abe Fortas resigns from the Supreme Court under pressure. Fortas, a liberal Democrat and political crony of outgoing president Lyndon Johnson, was originally chosen by Johnson to replace retiring Chief Justice Earl Warren, but conservatives in the Senate blocked Fortas’s confirmation (see June 23, 1969). President Nixon intended to fill the Court with as many of his choices as possible, and he, along with conservative Republicans and Democrats who do not agree with Fortas’s liberal stance on civil rights, targeted Fortas for a smear campaign designed to force him off the bench. Nixon used what White House counsel John Dean will later call “an ugly bluff” against Fortas: He has Attorney General John Mitchell inform Fortas that he intends to open a special probe into Fortas’s dealings—while on the bench—with a financier already under investigation. Mitchell insinuates that he will put Fortas’s wife, herself an attorney and partner at Fortas’s former law firm, and other former partners of Fortas’s on the witness stand. Whether Fortas actually had any direct illegal dealings with this financier is unclear—certainly his dealings had such an appearance—but the bluff worked; Fortas agreed to retire early, thus clearing a position on the Court for Nixon to fill. Nixon will find it difficult to replace Fortas with one of the Southern conservatives he wants on the Court; Senate Democrats will lead successful efforts to block the nomination of two of Nixon’s nominees, the respected, moderately conservative Clement Haynsworth, and the virulently racist G. Harrold Carswell, himself recommended by Mitchell’s assistant, William Rehnquist. (Carswell’s failed nomination will produce a memorable statement from Senator Roman Hruska (R-NE), who, in defense of Carswell, tells the Senate: “Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they, and a little chance?”) Nixon will use the defeats to make political hay in the South by claiming that Senate Democrats do not want a Southerner on the bench. (Dean 2007, pp. 127-129)

More ....
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=civilliberties_242#civilliberties_242


IMO, we should have been impeaching the fascists who put W in the Oval Office - - !!!

[boppers]

16. A Yemeni is not a Uighur.

Totally different circumstances, thus, the cases should not be conflated.

[fascisthunter]

22. proof our system of government has been compromised

no justice, civilization.

[lovuian]

24. the hague will be seeing them

someday