There were two opinions issued yesterday, that I didn't get to point to. The first opinion comes from the federal Appeals court, on Guantanamo detainees.
A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that hundreds of detainees in U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, do not have the right to challenge their imprisonment in federal courts, a victory for the Bush administration that could lead to the Supreme Court again addressing the issue.
In its 2 to 1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld one of the central components of the Military Commissions Act, the law enacted last year by a then-Republican-controlled Congress that stripped Guantanamo detainees of their right to such habeas corpus petitions. Lawyers have filed the petitions on behalf of virtually all of the nearly 400 detainees still at Guantanamo, challenging President Bush's right to hold them indefinitely without charges. Yesterday's ruling effectively dismisses the cases.
Dismisses? Hardly. there is still an appeal to SCOTUS, should they choose to hear arguments. Take note that this decision was not unanimous. There was a dissenting opinion that I'll get to in just a moment.
What excuse the majority uses to determine that detainees held in Guantanamo, other than the defying the will of congress? That habeas corpus does not extend to soil leased from other sovereignty's.
Now for the dissenting opinion. Congress has not suspended the right to Habeas Corpus, and that extends to people on soil leased from other sovereignty's.
Even if this case is heard by SCOTUS, it appears that Congress is going to have to make changes to the Military Commissions Act.
But, as it stands, the Federal Appeals Court has said that detainees have no rights.
The second ruling comes from SCOTUS on the huge tabacco award, to which they overturn.
The Supreme Court yesterday overturned a nearly $80 million verdict intended to punish the Philip Morris tobacco company for endangering the lives of smokers, and the justices set limits on how jurors can decide to make big business pay for wrongdoing.
The court's narrowly written 5 to 4 decision said that an Oregon court had improperly let jurors calculate the harm done to many in deciding damages paid to an individual.
Effectively, Philip Morris holds no accountability when their practice harmed millions of people.
Both these rulings were against the people, and I believe the rights of the people are going to shrink even further, as appointed judges last a lot longer than a president that appointed them.