Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GST who wrote (121825)	12/18/2003 3:32:01 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 281500

The Ninth Circuit wrote on sand since the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case in another context in a case arising out of the DC Circuit. The Ninth should have stayed the case pending the Supremes' ruling. As a result, it may very well get reversed. Again. The author of the Ninth Circuit's decision, Judge Reinhardt, is very, very liberal. A contributor to the fact that the Ninth Circuit gets reversed a lot by the Supremes.

To: GST who wrote (121825)	12/18/2003 6:28:37 PM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 281500

Goody! Certainly makes me feel safer that the dirty bomber will be walking the streets. How does it make you feel GST?

To: GST who wrote (121825)	12/19/2003 1:38:52 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I'd say that the odds that yesterday's Ninth Circuit's decision in Gherebi is going to be overruled are very high. Judge Reinhardt ignored an on-point 1950 case from the Supreme Court involving Germans assisting the Japanese in WWII after hostilities with Germany ended but before the Japanese surrendered. The existence and binding precedential force of the 1950 case was highlighted by the dissenting Judge. Its existence suggests that Judge Reinhardt who wrote the majority opinion was engaging in a bit of BS when he said the issue was "new." It clearly was not. If you care to read the 1950 case, I've provided the link below. In a nutshell, the case holds that there is no jurisdiction over the case. There is no basis for the exercise of judicial power over cases involving nonresident enemy aliens held outside the US borders during times of war. The only interesting question is whether we are in a state of war, in my view. Tough. They should have thought of the consequences when they decided to back AQ and the Taliban. I think the American terrorist (Padilla) case will be upheld because of his citizenship. He will probably have full rights, as he should. caselaw.lp.findlaw.com