Judge Luttig rules against GWB
By jgrasley Posted in User Blogs — Comments (28) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The full opinion (pdf format) is available from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals web site.
First, he slams the President, saying the administratio is playing a shell-game with the defendent, trying to shift him from one court to another to avoid a judgement. From the published opinion
As for the first of these reported concerns, we would regard the intentional mooting by the government of a case of this import out of concern for Supreme Court consideration not as legitimate justification but as admission of attempted avoidance of review. The government cannot be seen as conducting litigation with the enormous implications of this litigation -- litigation imbued with significant public interest -- in such a way as to select by which forum as between the Supreme Court of the United States and an inferior appellate court it wishes to be bound.
If that isn't enough, he then slams the President for not having the guts to show that the case was weak, and not having the political courage to admit that the case should be dismissed.
Thus, in the end, concerns over evidentiary issues could no more justify the government's actions than could an interest in avoiding Supreme Court review.
That neither of these speculated reasons would have justified the government's actions is not to say that there are not legitimate reasons for those actions. There may well be. For example, the government could have come to believe that the information on which Padilla has been detained is in fact not true or, even if true, is not sufficiently reliable to justify his continued military detention (although to serve as legitimate basis for its actions the government would have had to come to such belief based upon information or intelligence acquired since the issuance of our decision). Of course, if the government had come to so believe, it is expected that it would have informed this court or the Supreme Court and then proceeded as it has. But any legitimate reasons are not evident, and the government has not offered explanation.
I am starting to suspect that these judges who claimed to be conservatives when appointed are now RHINOS like Judge George W. Greer (Schiavo case(, and John E. Jones (ID case in Dover)
Yeah but if the government can not make the dirty bomb chrge stick, they should still charge for criminal stuff he did. I mean do we let Padilla out now just cause Luttig won't allow to charge him? Is not he a terrorist?
He's legislating from the bench along with the rest of the 4th Circuit.
What else is new?
I'm not sure if he's a terrorist. Don't you think he should be charged and tried if he is? Or are you completely comfortable with a president (any president)simply stating that someone is a terrorist, and locking him up with no review in sight?
...That people would try to champion Luttig over Alito. In the end, those in that camp seemed to be misinformed and seemed to prefer Luttig over Alito because "other people had said great things about Luttig".
In the end, there may have been a reason Luttig "flunked" his interview with GWB.
I agree with the earlier post. Luttig's job isn't to take sides or to be a political conservative. We only ask that he be a textualist or an originalist and write his opinions well and strongly. We don't always have to agree with him or he with us. If he's a good judge he will probably rule in a manner we agree with most of the time.
Even our superheros (Thomas / Scalia) disagree a lot (a lot more than you would think if you just trusted the old media's BS about Thomas and Scalia being right wing clones). I won't let one (or even a few) opinions discredit Luttig. His track record and opinions speak for themselves.
and it's a big reason Alito was chosen over Luttig and Janice Rogers Brown, IMHO.
In the original rulling Luttig allowed DOJ to hold Paddila in military custody cause DOJ said he was a terrorist. And Luttig allowed that. And now he won't allow to charge he as a criminal. I mean that a total flip flop. He is a terrorist and he is a criminal. So even if you can make one charge stick the other one shoudl be ok.
correction. can = cannot make one charge stick.
My source told me (way back when during O'Conner retirement) that the president didn't feel personaly comfortable with Luttig. An initial interview was cordial but the president just "didn't feel right" about it. He (my friend) said it was just the president "looking into someone's soul" and that person may not have been enough "down to earth". At the time I was dissapointed because I was pulling for Luttig but my friend said it's not gonna happen.
I think you're right. The interview went well on the surface but bombed.
so if a judge rules against the president that makes him an activist judge? maybe luttig ruled based on the constitution and rule of law.i`m a conservative but realize the law isn`t always going to go your way.maybe alito may surprise some people and actually rule based on the constitution.
Yeah, I much rather have a criminal and a terrorist to be running around out there then have him tried in criminal court.
I doubt they will keep him military jail now, since DOJ can not charge him with being a "dirty bomber" (so they said). But he still commited crimes, and Luttig is not allowing DOJ to charge him with it. So he goes free?
Thats judicial activism if I ever saw any.
Unless some sort of military tribunal?
But Luttig won't allow to transfer him there to stand trial for that. So now what? Just let him go?
This appears to be a very narrow decision on a transfer rule in which the government maybe thought they could quickly make this case go away in a friendly court despite the fact that jurisdiction actually resides in the US Sup Ct given that the appeal had already been filed. The tone of the opinion indicates the judges are mad at being presumed upon in a cute legal manuever. I do think Luttig went into way too much speculation as to motive and I always think its unseemly when courts add a lot of pompous dicta.
Just rule for goodness sake, but
1. Does Bush fear a 5-4 ruling against him on the merits given O'Copnnors continuing presence
but
2. Do you expect that Bush will now move for dismissal of the appeal in the sup ct now?
Ive done a lot of newspaper columns here in Atlanta on the enemy combatent issue and was one of the first to use the term after 911 and would like to maybe get a quote or two from you and maybe Erick or another lawyer here if he weighs in on this.
I simply cannot make myself care overmuch about Jose Padilla, one way or the other. I only have the time and mental energy for just so many causes, and Mr. Padilla is not one of them. IOW, I'd love to help you, really, but it would involve a level of reading I'm not comfortable undertaking, so I'll have to pass.
P.S. The humorous side of me wants to view this as a smack by Luttig for nominating Miers. But that's probably not true.
Probably.
padilla's appeal of a prior ruling by the 4th C ct that held that the president can hold enemy combatents indefinitely. Bush is afraid that with OConnor on the court he could lose the appeal in a 5-4 decision and so doesnt want to risk a devastating precedent. No sup ct has ever attacked executuive war waging power in such a way but some rulings since 911 makes it possible this court could. Im sure no president would ever release any enemy combatent that is a grave threat in war no matter what a court says but he wants to try and stop padillas appeal. This was an attempt to get it done in a quick way on an obscure rule. the court wouldnt bite and was mad that the president tried to pull a fast one presuming they would roll over. But Luttig went way overboarad and was very unprofessional in all his assigning of motives. Judging at its pompous worst. Though the decision may be right.
Jurusduiction is in the sup ct now. I suspect they will make a motion that the case be dismissed in the sup ct. But no matter what padilla will remain in custody either as an EC or an indicted felon.
I have sent out a call for help. If anyone responds, I shall direct them your way.
then execute a warrantless search of his house and shoot him too.
I forgot that one and they could try him in a military tribunal
or let him out in South Georgia near a VFW and announce his name with a bullhorn.
Any O'Connor vote can be made null and void with just a little bit of stalling until after Alito's confirmation. J. Scalia might be inclined to take his time formulating his dissent, for instance.
that they would lose the appeal in any event? You know I did think that SDOC would not get to vote unless they ruled quickly.
What are your thoughts on why they are taking the indictment course? That they cant get 5 votes to hold an illegal enemy combatent indefinitely, or until hostilities are over?
You know really the court should simply decline jurisdiction and should have for a lot of these cases, but they were all 5-4 either for or against.
OH, I KNOW
THEY FEAR ROBERTS WILL RECUSE HIMSELF maybe
because he sat on the DC Circuit panel that heard it.
So he promised during his confirmation hearing, so it's more than just speculation.
so that leaves the Court at 4-4 best case on tribunals, no?
That means the lower court ruling stands, so why would the WH be worried?
Have agents take him to a 'Waffle House' for breakfast just before they let him go. Covert agents start a small grease fire. Once they've left the building, they shout "That guy tried to burn down the Waffle House!"
Start feeding him food from 'Krystal Burger' he'll die of starvation or coronary heart failure before the next stage of the trial.
Set him free at a NASCAR race in a pink leisure suit. 6 seconds later hit the PA system with, "Yes, folks. That is Jose' Padilla' in that pink suit right there. America's own homegrown terrorist. You know what he just told me? He thinks NASCAR and Jesus both suck."
We built 2 million Waffle Houses since he left the whole state of jawja and SC both in flames.
Nice use of the regional resouces, esp the oxymornic krystal burgers!. Do you live where we could freeze him in the snow. Are you in Chicago or LA?
Nice website, hey, what are the top three alt rock bands today?
I used to own an alt rock bar but have been into mostly talk radio or Marshall Tucker band music lately or sam Cooke but I was into Alice in Chains and Soungarden for years.
"conservative" is not a synonym for "supports everything the Bush administration does".
isn't like a senator's vote on a bill. Deciding against the administration doesn't make him a "RINO" or a traitor to the movement. Maybe the administrations position was simply incorrect or argued poorly. There is more to consider than Luttig's vote one way or the other.