Deference to Congress and Boumediene

[Ms Janet Cooper Alexander]

I thought that limiting federal power was exactly what Boumediene was  
all about.  No one is arguing that Tarble's Case is no longer good  
law, and therefore detainees can seek a remedy in state court.
Janet Alexander

Quoting DavidEBernstein at aol.com:

>
> The fact that the decisions were, in fact, rather inconsequential, didn't
> prevent some rather alarmist articles, books, and essays about how   
> the Court was
>  somehow returning the United States to the pre-New Deal stone ages.
>
> As for liberty, there is a long tradition, which some of us still adhere  to,
> holding that limiting federal power is in fact a very important aspect of
> liberty, even if the facts of Lopez and Morrison were not terribly   
> relevant  to
> that goal.  Consider, instead of those two cases, Gonzalez v.  Raich.
>
> In a message dated 6/17/2008 7:57:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> bickersj1 at nku.edu writes:
>
> Isn't this an  apples-oranges comparison?  When the Court was reigning in
> Congress and  the President as to Commerce, there wasn't really any   
> interest on
> the opposite  side.  After all, nothing about the act at issue in Lopez
> preempted any  state prohibition of guns in schools.  The Court's   
> decision wasn't
> even  protective of future defendants: Congress simply repassed the   
> statute, with
>  the jurisdictional element that the Chief Justice suggested, and life went
> on.  One may agree or disagree with the results, or the institutional
> relationships they suggest, but those cases seem to be purely about   
> separation  of
> powers, and not about liberty.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> **************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
> fuel-efficient used cars.        
> (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
>