Supreme court nominee - american POW decision

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by DJPoopypants, Jul 23, 2005.

  1. DJPoopypants

    DJPoopypants New Member

    I've heard that Roberts was a judge that tossed out reparations claims by american POWs of the 1st gulf war. True?

    How does that play legally and politically? I dunno the legalese of the decision, but certainly that's a potentially embarassing issue in the confirmation hearings if someone wants to make an issue of it?

    Its an interesting non-abortion perspective, isn't it?
     
  2. Ray Luca

    Ray Luca BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Feb 2, 2005
    Yes Iraq should have given it to them not the US, and if not another reason to take over iraq.

    Then again we might have have to give every African American 40 acers and 2 mules.

    Yes that should keep him off the supreme court all right :)
     
  3. Norsk Troll

    Norsk Troll Member+

    Sep 7, 2000
    Central NJ
    First, to equate (a) damages suffered by living people to (b) claims by a group of people for reparations due to damages suffered by people that have been dead for decades, is ridiculous.

    Second, they were not asking for reparations from the US. They sued the Iraqi government for damages suffered while prisoners of war in Iraq's custody during the Gulf War. They obtained a judgment for damages at the District Court level, and on appeal, the US government (i.e. Bush) sought to block the soldiers' claims against Iraq, because they didn't want anything getting in the way of the "new" Iraq they were trying to build. Roberts sided with the US government and overturned their judgment against Iraq.

    I believe it has been appealed to the Supreme Court, but am not sure when it is due to come up.
     
  4. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    See, this is the kind of thing that can get out of control in a judicial confirmation. Simply presenting a result without the reasoning tells us little, but gives people who are against him ammunition to say "Roberts rules against soldiers."

    You didn't provide us with any kind of site, so we can't even go look it up, but assuming that the holding is accurate, I can see lots of valid legal reasons why a US Court would be unable to award damages to its own soldiers against another government.

    Another question. Was Roberts a Federal Judge back then? It seems like that would have been the time he may have been in the solicitor general's office.

    I am by no means supporting him at this point, however, I am sure that every case he has decided as a judge and argued as an attorney will be examined in the confirmation process, so sit tight and don't believe all the crap propaganda coming from both sides on this.
     
  5. Norsk Troll

    Norsk Troll Member+

    Sep 7, 2000
    Central NJ

    Here is the opinion. See Roberts' concurrance for his personal legal opinion, where he basically states that Congress gave the President broad sweeping powers under the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act (the broad authority to go to war against Iraq), which included the right to suspend certain portions of the Iraq Sanctions Act, the Foreign Assistance Act, and "any other provision of law that applies to countries that have supported terrorism". He agreed with the Bush Administration that the quoted language also allowed them to suspend the 1996 amendment to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act which permits claims against a foreign state for damages arising from personal injury or death caused by torture, if the state was a terrorist nation or sponsor at the time of the injury. Under the 2003 Presidential Determination, Bush suspended with respect to Iraq the specific named sections (irrelevant) and "any other provision of law that applies to countries that have supported terrorism." So in other words, Congress had delegated to Bush the power to simply suspend any law that he wants with respect to terrorism, insofar as the may be applied to Iraq, and in fact, his Determination did so suspend them. (Unfortunately, they never discuss the Constitutionality of such a delegation of power).

    The incidents occured 12 years before the suspension, the claims were filed three years before the suspension, and in fact the judgment was granted by the District Court before the US government sought to intervene in the case (they didn't show up until the plaintiffs tried to attach Iraqi assets held in this country). Robert acknowledges that the Congressional authorization's history contains no evidence that Congress intended it to apply to the statute allowing claims (it was meant to allow suspension of sanctions after Iraq became a good state), stating instead that the breadth of the authorization (ie - it's poor draftsmanship), is enough to extend the President's power, even though Congress may not have intended for him to use it that way. Absent evidence that they specifically intended it NOT to extend that way, then it must be extended.

    I hope you will note from my posts that I have not necessarily said he is right or wrong. I have just tried to present the facts of the case. And in fact, the other two Appellate Judges also dismissed the plaintiffs claims, for other reasons.
     
  6. Ray Luca

    Ray Luca BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Feb 2, 2005
    So do you think that will keep this guy off the court?
     
  7. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    Thanks for the link.

    Since it is a rather lengthy opinion, I just scanned over his concurrence. It will provide interesting fodder for his confirmation hearing, but he raises points I largely agree with.

    When a statute expresses a plain meaning, then the courts follow that plain meaning (unless it is unconstitutional).

    He has a great line in there about taking english words over latin maxims every time.

    The reason this doesn't bug me is that if the courts, in fact, get it wrong, and the outcome is not what congress intended, then congress can simply pass another law basically alerting the courts to the fact that they got it wrong -- this is how separation of powers should work.

    In the rare case where the courts got it so wrong as to create injustices, congress can make changes, and make them retroactive.

    Anyway, its an interesting case, but it simply supports Bush's claim that he is not likely to legislate from the bench (I can't believe I used that term because it is frankly a conservative talking point buzz word, but what the hell. ;))
     
  8. dj43

    dj43 New Member

    Aug 9, 2002
    Nor Cal
    ;)
     
  9. Norsk Troll

    Norsk Troll Member+

    Sep 7, 2000
    Central NJ
    I've said in other threads that I don't believe there is any reason he should not be confirmed, and confirmed fairly quickly.
     
  10. dj43

    dj43 New Member

    Aug 9, 2002
    Nor Cal
    And if Congress would just act the way they should, ie., give a clear expression to the court that they have stepped over the line, the separation of powers would actually work. Unfortunately from Marbury to now, Congress has been far too wimpy and the Judicial branch has far more power than the FF ever intended, or is reasonable in a representative government.
     
  11. yossarian

    yossarian Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jun 16, 1999
    Big City Blinking
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Please. I get the impression you know very little about the actual Marbury decision, if you're using it as an example of Congress being "wimpy."
     
  12. Norsk Troll

    Norsk Troll Member+

    Sep 7, 2000
    Central NJ
    They might work even better if they stopped delegating their powers to the President.
     
  13. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    From Marbury to now? Really?

    And, here I was all these years thinking I was living in the greatest democracy on earth, and that the FF had gotten things right from the beginning, and that their intentions were demonstrated by a living breathing free government that has become the world's dominate power as a society of laws for the people and by the people. Huh. Who knew?

    It would be nice to see what we could have achieved as a nation without this terrible judiciary.
     

Share This Page