The Jose Padilla decision
The press (as reflected by CBS radio news) is touting the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the Jose Padilla appeal as a great triumph for the Bush Administration, endorsing the President's right to hold Americans indefinitely in prison without charges.
While it is a minor win for the Administration, it is certainly not an endorsement of the decision to imprison Padilla without charges. The reason the Court decided not to hear this case, I assume, is the very fact that Padilla is no longer in prison without charges. He has now been charged and is about to be tried for various crimes that are largely unrelated to those touted as the reasons for his original incarceration. Hence, the government's original decision to hold him without charges is now moot -- at least as far as Padilla is concerned.
Yes, the Court could have heard this case to head of any future attempt by the government to use the powers they claim, and I would have preferred it if they had. But, they had no obligation to do so, and their failure to do so should not in any way be taken as an endorsement of the administration's position.
While it is a minor win for the Administration, it is certainly not an endorsement of the decision to imprison Padilla without charges. The reason the Court decided not to hear this case, I assume, is the very fact that Padilla is no longer in prison without charges. He has now been charged and is about to be tried for various crimes that are largely unrelated to those touted as the reasons for his original incarceration. Hence, the government's original decision to hold him without charges is now moot -- at least as far as Padilla is concerned.
Yes, the Court could have heard this case to head of any future attempt by the government to use the powers they claim, and I would have preferred it if they had. But, they had no obligation to do so, and their failure to do so should not in any way be taken as an endorsement of the administration's position.
posted by walldon | 10:39 AM
1 Comments:
Remember, however, that "mootness," like "standing," is one of the essential principles that keeps the Supreme Court from acting as a legislature. The Judicial Branch decides "Cases or Controversies," and by its own generally bi-partisan rulings -- although conservatives have tended to adhere more strongly -- has avoided issuing opinions outside the context of a genuine legal dispute. Note that Kennedy and Stevens joined the decision. But 3 did not, and I would be interested to see where I come out after reading it through.
Post a Comment
<< Home