Supreme Court oral arguments

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thomas Veil, Apr 20, 2004.

  1. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Feb 14, 2004
    OBJECTIVE reality
    Came home this evening and turned on C-Span and saw (heard, actually) the current oral arguments being made in front of the Supreme Court, in defense of certain aspects of the Patriot Act.

    The cases being argued are Rasul vs. Bush and Al Odah vs. the US. To my pleasant surprise, the justices appeared disinclined to accept at face value all the arguments that U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson presented. I wouldn't quite say they gave him a grilling, but if Olson thought he was just going to waltz in and pretty much get a rubber stamp for the Bush administration's policies, he was sorely disappointed.

    Who knows, maybe some of the more Draconian parts of the so-called Patriot Act will be struck down.

    If you'd like to hear what transpired today, C-Span is offering a Real Player recording at their site.
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601


    Jul 18, 2002
    the implications of this case are pretty staggering. should olson prevail, it would mean the executive branch is essentially free of checks and balances when detaining/imprisoning non-US citizens "offshore". from what i heard, a large part of this will be some kind of determination on whether gitmo is domestic-enough to not be considered a foreign country.

    imo, olson should have recused himself from this case.
  3. mactastic macrumors 68040


    Apr 24, 2003
    Yeah, kinda difficult to be objective about the WoT when your wife was among the murdered on 9/11.
  4. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Jul 16, 2002
    Based on what I've heard of the justice's questioning, it looks like the Bush administration has its usual three hip-pocket votes. Scalia was even helping Olson answer questions from the other justices, when it appeared he was having trouble formulating a response himself.

Share This Page