The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
SCALIA MAD AS FUCK IN THIS DISSENT
| sticky mother | 11/11/15 |
| sticky mother | 02/13/16 |
| ultramarine office | 11/11/15 |
| sticky mother | 11/11/15 |
| ultramarine office | 11/11/15 |
| ungodly pisswyrm travel guidebook | 11/11/15 |
| sticky mother | 11/11/15 |
| ungodly pisswyrm travel guidebook | 11/11/15 |
| beady-eyed magical chapel legend | 11/11/15 |
| sticky mother | 11/11/15 |
| beady-eyed magical chapel legend | 11/11/15 |
| vigorous hospital | 11/11/15 |
| sticky mother | 11/11/15 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: November 11th, 2015 12:51 PM Author: sticky mother JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS and JUSTICE ALITO join, dissenting. On December 30, 2005, Congress enacted the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA). It unambiguously provides that, as of that date, “no court, justice, or judge” shall have jurisdiction to consider the habeas application of a Guantanamo Bay detainee. Notwithstanding this plain directive, the Court today concludes that, on what it calls the statute’s most natural reading, every “court, justice, or judge” before whom such a habeas application was pending on December 30 has jurisdiction to hear, consider, and render judgment on it. This conclusion is patently erroneous.
And even if it were not, the jurisdiction supposedly retained should, in an exercise of sound equitable discretion, not be exercised. |
 |
Date: February 13th, 2016 5:16 PM Author: sticky mother (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3041954&forum_id=2#29820180) |
Date: November 11th, 2015 12:55 PM Author: ultramarine office lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3041954&forum_id=2#29158866) |
|
Date: November 11th, 2015 1:00 PM Author: sticky mother wtf is so funny, shitlib (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3041954&forum_id=2#29158899) |
|
Date: November 11th, 2015 1:03 PM Author: ultramarine office life (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3041954&forum_id=2#29158923) |
|
Date: November 11th, 2015 1:04 PM Author: ungodly pisswyrm travel guidebook who's right in this case? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3041954&forum_id=2#29158929) |
|
Date: November 11th, 2015 1:06 PM Author: sticky mother How would u resolve the jurisdiction stripping perplexity in this case, shitlib? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3041954&forum_id=2#29158941) |
|
Date: November 11th, 2015 1:07 PM Author: ungodly pisswyrm travel guidebook I have no idea what that means. i'm no lolyer. I am interested to hear your opinion on this matter (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3041954&forum_id=2#29158947) |
|
Date: November 11th, 2015 1:06 PM Author: beady-eyed magical chapel legend Sounds wrong (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3041954&forum_id=2#29158942) |
|
Date: November 11th, 2015 1:08 PM Author: sticky mother 1The Court apparently believes that the effective-date provision means nothing at all. “That paragraph (1), along with paragraphs (2) and (3), is to ‘take effect on the date of enactment,’ DTA §1005(h)(1), 119 Stat. 2743, is not dispositive,” says the Court, ante, at 14, n. 9. The Court’s authority for this conclusion is its quote from INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U. S. 289, 317 (2001), to the effect that “a statement that a statute will become effective on a certain date does not even arguably suggest that it has any application to conduct that occurred at an earlier date.” Ante, at 14, n. 9 (emphasis added, internal quotation marks omitted). But this quote merely restates the obvious: An effective-date provision does not render a statute applicable to “conduct that occurred at an earlier date,” but of course it renders the statute applicable to conduct that occurs on the effective date and all future dates—such as the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction here. The Court seems to suggest that, because the effective-date provision does not authorize retroactive application, it also fails to authorize prospective application (and is thus useless verbiage). This cannot be true |
|
Date: November 11th, 2015 1:18 PM Author: beady-eyed magical chapel legend Seems wrong. I get that Scalia is being clever saying exercising jurisdiction in retroactive cases is actually a perspective act but just lol you could say that about any other kind of case too. I guess retroactive has no meaning to Scalia (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3041954&forum_id=2#29159033) |
|
Date: November 11th, 2015 1:26 PM Author: vigorous hospital that's not how i'm reading scalia he's reading the language as written, the majority reading it as they wish it was written |
|
Date: November 11th, 2015 1:28 PM Author: sticky mother literalism v purposivism? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3041954&forum_id=2#29159105) |