I said yesterday that John Roberts had issued an opinion in the Hamdi case in which he argued for giving the President virtually unchecked authority in terms of treating American citizens as "enemy combatants". That was a mistake. I was confusing Roberts with Judge Harvie Wilkinson. Hamdi's case was heard in the 4th circuit, not the DC circuit, so Judge Roberts did not rule on it in any capacity. Sorry for the confusion.
More like this
In a major ruling with enormous implications, a federal judge has ruled that the government has 45 days to charge Jose Padilla with a crime, prove that he is a material witness and must be held, or release him.
Publius, of Legal Fiction, has written an entry about the uproar over Sen. Reid's statement that Clarence Thomas has been an "embarrassment to the court". It's worth reading.
I just realized I've neglected to discuss last week's stunning statement from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales that he could not rule out President Bush authorizing the warranteless wiretapping of
John Ashcroft, after resigning as Attorney General, gave a speech to the Federalist Society in which he took a final shot at the judiciary for "second guessing" the P
You were close Ed
Roberts ruled on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
Reason's HIT and RUN is discussing it now