Monthly Archives: October 2005

I Signed the Law Professors’ Hamdan Statement

I am one of the 450 law professors who signed a statement calling on the Supreme Court to grant review of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (No. 05-184), a case challenging the President’s creation of military commissions to try “unlawful combatants”:

We, the undersigned law professors at many law schools, urge that lawyers, jurists, and the public take every opportunity to reassert the rule of law, to reiterate America’s constitutional commitments, and to insist on humane treatment that gives each person a fair opportunity to be heard before impartial tribunals, not ones controlled by the executive.

Thanks are due to to Bruce Ackerman (Yale), David Cole (Georgetown), Rosa Ehrenreich Brooks (Virginia), Deena Hurwitz (Virginia), and Judith Resnik (Yale) for organizing the letter.

Although I completely agree with the text of the statement, I do feel ever so slightly odd about this project because letters like this shouldn’t actually influence what the Supreme Court does. And, I suspect, they don’t actually influence it either. So the project is arguably in poor taste, and probably futile. But I do believe that the issue is of enormous importance … and what else can we do?

Posted in Civil Liberties | 4 Comments

Good News (Sorta)

No, no, not the indictment (full text). It’s never good news that our government is run by liars and crooks.

FP&L have advanced their estimate of when I get my power back from Nov. 22 to Nov. 15.

I feel like I should feel more grateful.

Posted in Personal | Comments Off on Good News (Sorta)

Is This the Most Important Paragraph in Today’s NYT?

It was buried deep in the print edition, but I wonder if this isn’t the most informative paragraph in today’s paper,

Striking Guantánamo Detainees Gain in Ruling. Judge Kessler’s order is the latest development in a vast change in the legal situation at Guantánamo. For the first two years of the camp’s existence, the military had total control of procedures there and what it told the public about them. But after a Supreme Court ruling in 2004 allowing lawyers to represent detainees and visit them, the military has had to contend with judicial rulings on procedures and with the ability of defense lawyers to provide an alternative narrative as to events there.

Posted in Guantanamo | Comments Off on Is This the Most Important Paragraph in Today’s NYT?

UK presidency of the EU Logo, Modified

The UK Presidency of the EU had a snappy internet logo with flying birds that they were proud of. Someone has improved it:

eu-bird.gif

(Thanks to Joaquín Roy, Jean Monnet Professor & Director, European Union Center at UM)

Posted in Law: International Law | Comments Off on UK presidency of the EU Logo, Modified

Miers Defenestrated

As predicted here more than a week ago, the White House withdrew the Miers nomination. So now we can speculate as to who’s next, and whether it will be such an awful nomination that it will be filibustered. The first question is whether, having named a woman the first time, the White House can get away with replacing her with a man — suggesting that in its eyes no women are up to the job. As far as I know, however, all of the leading women candidates are rather extreme, and thus filibuster bait.

Perhaps it depends on the number and nature of whatever indictments we get tomorrow, and what it does to the White House’s political power?

Posted in Law: The Supremes | Comments Off on Miers Defenestrated

Vladeck: Supreme Court May Take A Mulligan on Milligan

My colleague Stephen Vladeck has a guest column at JURIST in which he looks at Jose Padilla and the Mulligan Problem. It’s a very clear explanation that should appeal to both lawyers and non-lawyers alike.

Posted in Civil Liberties | 3 Comments