I said yesterday that John Roberts had issued an opinion in the Hamdi case in which he argued for giving the President virtually unchecked authority in terms of treating American citizens as "enemy combatants". That was a mistake. I was confusing Roberts with Judge Harvie Wilkinson. Hamdi's case was heard in the 4th circuit, not the DC circuit, so Judge Roberts did not rule on it in any capacity. Sorry for the confusion.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
The Bush administration genuinely appears to think that as long as it claims it needs the authority to do something in order to fight terrorism, there are no limits whatsoever on its power. This has reached the point where even the administration's defenders are having a difficult time finding a…
Sandefur links to this article by Harvey Silvergate in Reason about J. Michael Luttig's resignation from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals to become the chief counsel for Boeing. That article in turn refers to a piece in the Wall Street Journal that is no longer available, unfortunately. Both…
Numerous websites are reporting that Chief Justice Rehnquist has informed the White House of his intent to retire at the end of this term. The Chicago Tribune is reporting that the White House has been busy interviewing potential nominees and quotes anonymous White House sources on the short list…
In a major ruling with enormous implications, a federal judge has ruled that the government has 45 days to charge Jose Padilla with a crime, prove that he is a material witness and must be held, or release him. Padilla, a US citizen, has been held for over two and a half years in a military prison…
You were close Ed
Roberts ruled on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
Reason's HIT and RUN is discussing it now