I wouldn't insult you by linking anything that is dumbed down. However, the University of Chicago has a wonderful compilation of the various cases in full text as well as "skinny" versions suitable for quick reading. The site has good mass media stuff as well as highly technical law review articles that I haven't plowed through yet. And may never.
law.uchicago.edu
In the heat of dealing with Win's ad hominen crap, I forgot to emphasize my position, namely, that if the Supremes follow Johnson v. Eisentrager, the case will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, i.e., for a failure of judicial power over the dispute. This was the position of the dissenting Ninth Circuit judge who was out-voted by two of his colleagues.
The Federal courts first inquiry whenever a case is filed is to determine whether the case in the first instance can be heard because the Constitution or a statute empowers them to resolve the dispute. In Johnson, which in my view presents a factual situation that is 100% on all fours with the Guantanamo prisoners' cases, the Court held it could not hear the matter. The recent Ninth Circuit case, over a dissent citing J. v. E., ignored the precedent.
My guess is that the Supremes will overrule the Ninth, citing J. v. E., but of course the Supremes can do whatever they want.
In Padilla, I think that the Supremes will give him the full panoply of due process rights, including trial by jury, since Padilla is an US citizen. |
