I suppose this means Luttig is now off the "short list"

[Bob Sheridan]

Why would the Supremes be anxious to take up a case in which they're apt 
to have to mess with the president they put there. 

I don't get the prediction favoring a near 100% likelihood of granting 
cert.

More like 100% in favor of wanting to take a duck.

Now if it were the Warren Court...

rs
sfls

Barksdale, Yvette wrote:

>Well I guess the theory would be in - in the worse case scenario the
>administration lied to the 4th circuit, that would be a strong reason
>for the Supremes to take the case and reconsider the 4th Circ. opinion -
>which is now precedent for more expansive Prez power. 
>
>(And of course, no one has ever accused the 4th circuit of being
>unsympathetic to Presidential authority - so the fact they are
>determined to preserve judicial review doesn't auger well for the
>President getting a pass here from the Supremes)
>
>yb
>
>***/////////////////////////////////////////***
> 
>Professor Yvette M. Barksdale
>The John Marshall Law School
>315 S. Plymouth Ct. 
>Chicago, IL 60604
>(312) 427-2737 (phone)
>(312) 427-9974 (fax)
> 
>***/////////////////////////////////////////***
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
>[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of John Barrett
>Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 8:12 PM
>To: Stephen Bundy; marty.lederman at comcast.net
>Cc: Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>Subject: RE: I suppose this means Luttig is now off the "short list"
>
>That is an extraordinary opinion by Judge Luttig for himself and Judge
>Michael.  In a variety of elegant and carefully couched ways, it drips
>acid on the President, the Attorney General and the 4th Circuit panel
>itself.  But why does it make a cert. grant more likely?
> 
>John Barrett
>St. John's    
>
>	-----Original Message----- 
>	From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu on behalf of Stephen
>Bundy 
>	Sent: Wed 12/21/2005 4:57 PM 
>	To: marty.lederman at comcast.net 
>	Cc: Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu 
>	Subject: Re: I suppose this means Luttig is now off the "short
>list"
>	
>	
>	People who know the history of the Padilla litigation better
>than I may have a different reaction, but reading the opinion I find it
>hard to avoid the conclusion that Judge Luttig thinks not just that he
>was manipulated, but also that there is a decent likelihood that at some
>point during the recent round of litigation before the Fourth Circuit,
>if not before, government advocacy in the case crossed the line into
>frivolousness or outright misrepresentation concerning the claimed bases
>for continued detention.  Shades of Korematsu!  Am I overinterpreting?
>	
>	Steve Bundy
>	
>	
>	
>	On 12/21/2005 1:09 PM, marty.lederman at comcast.net wrote:
>	
>
>		One of the most remarkable rebukes you'll ever see from
>a federal court to the Executive branch.  It drips with contempt and
>pique; he realizes he's been manipulated to carry their water -- going
>so far as to do them the favor off making up out of whole cloth the
>theory that Padilla was being detained to prevent him from returning to
>the Afghan battlefield -- only to realize that the government's whole
>strategy was to avoid judicial review of the detention policies at all
>costs, to the point where, just after Luttig's opinion, DOJ says "thanks
>anyway, but never mind."
>		 
>		http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/056396R1.P.pdf
>		 
>		The odds on a cert. grant just went up to somewhere in
>the neighborhoood of 100%.
>		
>  _____  
>
>
>		_______________________________________________
>		To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>		To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get
>password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>		
>		Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot
>be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
>messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list
>members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bobsheridan.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 73 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20051221/027eebc6/bobsheridan.vcf