Latest Breaking News

struggle4progress

(126,346 posts)

20. Plaintiffs challenged NDAA section 1210, which (with respect to citizen plaintiffs) essentially said

Tue Apr 29, 2014, 03:53 PM

Apr 2014

nothing beyond this section does not change existing law (without ever specifying what the existing law was) -- which is exactly why the President's signing statement described the section as meaningless

Deciding to play complete idiots for the purposes of the suit, citizen plaintiffs chose to adopt the rightwing crackpot stance that existing law would allow their arbitrary indefinite detention (which I agree would contravene our ancient rights and privileges)

As NDAA section 1210 never codified any view of existing law, plaintiffs were effectively insisting the court break with standard practice and determine the current status of the law, without a material issue before the court and with multiple possibly conflicting rulings in existence; the court naturally declined to do so

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

40 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court rejects hearing on military detention case [View all] IDemo Apr 2014 OP

American Democracy, (1787-2001) Kelvin Mace Apr 2014 #1

Plaintiffs challenged the law, claiming it allowed for their indefinite detention. 2nd Circuit ruled struggle4progress Apr 2014 #9

Bullcrap. "Can the NDAA be read to allow the president to detain indefinitely anyone he wants? rhett o rick Apr 2014 #10

It seems you still haven't read the 2nd Circuit decision: struggle4progress Apr 2014 #11

Since apparently you have nothing to add but snark rhett o rick Apr 2014 #12

So they find that the plaintiffs have no standing and dismiss. The Stranger Apr 2014 #17

Would you rather have had the court agree with the plaintiffs' rightwing crackpot view of the law? struggle4progress Apr 2014 #18

This isn't something the Court should defer on. The Stranger Apr 2014 #19

Plaintiffs challenged NDAA section 1210, which (with respect to citizen plaintiffs) essentially said struggle4progress Apr 2014 #20

The support for the NDAA and indefinite detention is unbelievable. Would these rhett o rick Apr 2014 #29

Absolutely! Kelvin Mace May 2014 #35

Let's look at your logic here. The current law allows indefinite detention. rhett o rick Apr 2014 #26

I do not call the plaintiffs rightwing crackpots: I say that their case unwisely advanced struggle4progress Apr 2014 #27

You are wrong. The law currently allows indefinite detention. rhett o rick Apr 2014 #28

He can detain Kelvin Mace Apr 2014 #13

I'm afraid you wouldn't be a good lawyer. The legislative history of the NDAA, as described struggle4progress Apr 2014 #15

Let's just look at the text you highlight Kelvin Mace Apr 2014 #21

The problem, as I expect we've discussed previously, is the Beltway consensus struggle4progress Apr 2014 #22

The use of the military to attack Kelvin Mace Apr 2014 #23

Well, large numbers of DUers understood a decade ago that the AUMF meant war within a few weeks, struggle4progress Apr 2014 #24

Yes, many of us Kelvin Mace Apr 2014 #30

Yes, the death of Democracy, and with the support of the American people depending on sabrina 1 Apr 2014 #32

As you can see in this thread, there are some try to rationalize away the rhett o rick Apr 2014 #33

People are arguing HARD Kelvin Mace Apr 2014 #34

The case is very simple. Jose Padilla was arrested, detained without council, tortured until rhett o rick May 2014 #36

They don't want to see their own complicity Kelvin Mace May 2014 #37

The head title guys at Reuters and AP are paid talent to twist the news with anti-Obama hints, in Fred Sanders Apr 2014 #2

The DOJ is NOT required to argue for the upholding of the current law. former9thward Apr 2014 #3

True, they finally changed their minds, but that is rare as rare can be. Fred Sanders Apr 2014 #4

In other words, they don't have to defend it. caseymoz Apr 2014 #7

The outrage comes from an inability to rise above Faux Nooz level trained responses. freshwest May 2014 #39

More SCOTUS corruption blackspade Apr 2014 #5

Night of the Living Dead Democracy blkmusclmachine Apr 2014 #6

IIRC the 2nd Circuit determined, that plaintiffs did not have standing, was based struggle4progress Apr 2014 #8

Thanks for the facts. The outrage machine feeds the Ignoratti who hate PBO. The Idiocracy cometh. freshwest May 2014 #38

This is a simple case. The SCOTUS said that the NDAA words that allow rhett o rick Apr 2014 #14

The courts held that the law doesn't authorize geek tragedy Apr 2014 #16

Wrong. The courts held that those that challenged the law didnt have STANDING. rhett o rick Apr 2014 #25

The script has already been written in too many people's heads. It writes itself. n/t freshwest May 2014 #40

It's double plus good. Octafish Apr 2014 #31