A Sad Day At the Court
October 9, 2007
The Supreme Court refused to hear case from a man who says the CIA kidnapped him and held him in an Afghan prison, during which time he was tortured. The Court’s refusal to hear the case means this man has no recourse for Justice. By the way, he wasn’t the man at the CIA had wanted. Oops!
Advertisement
16 Comments
Comments are closed.
That is sad, but not surprising. The Supreme Court only takes between 70 to 100 cases per year, and those are normally only cases involving issues where the circuit courts are split or where the case has national implications.
And this doesn’t have national (and international) implications?
I suppose they are just too busy trying to end abortion
Oh…wait…
It is nearly useless trying to pass judgment on the Court for not hearing a case since they usually don’t give any indication as to why they chose not to hear it. The only thing we do know is that fewer than four justices voted to hear it, which means that at least one of the liberal quartet thought there was a good reason not to.
Henry-
I am not condoning torture. I simply don’t know enough about the facts of this case (or the relevant law) to determine whether the denial of certiorari was appropriate or not. Weren’t you the one emphasizing the importance of legal definitions and standards the other day? :) And here, we are dealing with an actual judicial controversy! :)
In all seriousness though, my only point is that how the media characterizes a case is not always as simple as it may seem.
That having been said, I agree with RCM that what happened in this case was a tragedy, and it is unfortunate that there does not appear to be a legal remedy for that injustice.
I didn’t say anything about torture, Alex.
Tragic and appalling. The Court is perfectly happy to take cases relating to limiting damages and making it harder for people to sue corporations. And didn’t they take the case of Anna Nicole Smith– is this more important than human rights abuse?
For those who are interested, here is what SCOTUS Blog had to say on the denial of cert. in the CIA case:
“The Court denied review of an attempt to challenge the Central Intelligence Agency’s program of capturing individuals abroad and sending them to other countries for aggressive interrogation — the so-called “extraordinary renditions” program. There were no noted dissents from the denial order in El-Masri v. U.S. (06-1613).
The Court has not focused directly on the scope of the “state secrets” privilege since the 1953 decision in U.S. v. Reynolds. The Justices next opportunity to grant review of a case testing that privilege is American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency, a challenge to the government’s secret terrorism eavesdropping program. (That case has not yet been assigned a docket number).”
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-grants-no-new-cases-2
Again the reasons why the court takes cases is complex. To the public what are “insignificant cases or Plantiffs” are taken because of a split in the circuits.
THere are numerous blogs that cover these things quite well. I ahve long given up on good Supreme Court reporting.
I would look to the The Volokh Conspiracy or someone similar to try to read the tea leaves here if it comes up. Also the Court Reporter for Slate often seems to actually get the issues right at least. SO she she might chime in on this
I should say Mirror of Justice also does a good job on these cases. I think I recall one contributor correctly predicted that the Court would not take cert in the Catholic Hospital/ Giving voerage for Contraception to Emplyoee case
MM-
Once again, the Court’s certiorari process is not as simple as that. There are many reasons why the Court denies cert. Keep in mind also that it only takes four justices to grant cert. That this case was unable to garner four votes is significant, I think.
One would think that, with 5 Catholic Justices on the bench, there might be a more inclusive view of what is right and moral and what isn’t.
Oh, well ….. who said that their Catholicism would have any effect on their worldview. And there are not fetuses involved, either.
Ah, Jimmy, get with the program! Morality only matters for Catholic legislators– justices only interpret the constitution!
“justices only interpret the Constitution”
Ideally yes.
The more I read from some of the VN bloggers when it comes to matters related to the Supreme Court, the more I realize that it is this side that seeks to create a theocracy.
I suppose MM is kidding around with Jimmy Mac (above), and perhaps directing a little jab at those of us who think that, in fact, the Justices do not, and should not, take cases on the ground that they have compelling facts or are said to involve injustices. Fair enough. But, in my view, the jab misses.
First, the linked-to news story, by the way, is way off base: The denial of cert in no way “endorses” anything.
Next, the case could involve fetuses aplenty, Jimmy, but if there’s not a cert-worthy legal question presented — that is, the kind of the question that the Supreme Court answers, like the circuit-splitting question whether the federal partial-birth-abortion-ban act was constitutional — the Court is not going to take, and should not take, the case. (To say this is not, of course, to say that “morality” does not matter for judges.”).
Whomsoever is elected President in 2008 (Bubba Thompson, anyone?) will have the HUGE job of rescuing the US from our current Rogue Nation status with most of the rest of the world. This recent lack of cojones on the the part of SCOTUS is just another example of how far we have drifted from the status we one held.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,510523,00.html