Today in Supreme Court History

Today in Supreme Court History: September 10, 1949

|

9/10/1949: Justice Wiley Rutledge dies.

Justice Wiley Rutledge

NEXT: Thursday Open Thread

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. John Paul Stevens was one of his clerks. As a Justice, he had the satisfaction of writing an opinion upholding a view concerning habeas jurisdiction that Rutledge (and Stevens) advocated in a dissent decades earlier.

    1. Interesting! Josh should have put that in.

    2. Yep. Rutledge dissented in Ahrens v Clark and was of the view that habeas jurisdiction depends on where the custodian is located, i.e. the authority of the detainer, and not the physical location of the detainee. In Rasul v Bush, Stevens concluded that a case a few years prior to his joining the court, Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court (1973) had largely repudiated the majority’s reasoning in Ahrens (and Johnson v Eisentrager). Thus he concluded that Guantanamo Bay detainees could challenge their detention in D.C. District court through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Vindication.

      1. “Guantanamo Bay detainees”

        Yeah terrorists!

        Maybe save your comment for tomorrow.

        1. Yes, yes, all Muslims are terrorists, we get it.

          1. I said “Guantanamo Bay detainees”, you went to “all Muslims”

            4 of the 5 guys released by Obama for that traitor soldier are in the Taliban government. So, I’m comfortable in saying “Guantanamo Bay detainees” are terrorists.

            1. Every single last one of them?

              Be that as it may, there is no “bad persons” exception to habeas jurisdiction.

              1. It’s amazing to me that people actually think it’s wrong that someone a government holds in custody shouldn’t even be allowed to ask whether that government is holding them for a good reason.

                1. Well, this is Bob we’re talking about. His idea of constitutional rights is not the same as yours or mine.

                  1. “constitutional rights”

                    The terrorists at Gitmo are not American.

                    1. Constitution doesn’t say “American.” The rights involved apply to people against the government.

                    2. “We the People of the United States, … to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

                      Are the Gitmo terrorists “our Posterity”

                    3. Read the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and 14th Amendments, chief. I don’t think you have.

                    4. Bob is it your position that there is no outer limit whatsoever on bad things the US government is permitted to do to non-citizens?

                    5. “Bob is it your position that there is no outer limit whatsoever on bad things the US government is permitted to do to non-citizens?”

                      The Constitution does not apply overseas.

        2. I’d make the same comment. There is no “but he’s a TERRORIST” exception to the writ of habeas corpus. And after a whole twenty years of people like you devaluing human lives in the context of mass shootings, war, Covid, or health care, I’m not inclined to be persuaded by your emotional appeals to 9/11 as a reason that human rights and due process don’t matter. And you, “Mr Need a Tissue,” are the last person who should be attempting to shame me for not being sufficiently empathetic to terrorist attack.

          If you wanted this to work, maybe you should have been a better person and not mocked my empathy for victims of police violence.

          1. “sufficiently empathetic ”

            No one gives a sh*t about your empathy or lack of it.

            1. You do, apparently. You made your comment here. And have thought it’s worthy or mockery before.

              1. Scorn is not really “caring”.

                1. Keep telling yourself that. Tell yourself whatever tales you want to justify this state of affairs:

                  On the eve of the 20th anniversary of 9/11 you are portraying yourself as the defender of the victims of an act of cowardice and violence and trying to shame those who dare question the methods that our government uses to redress those wrongs. Trying to make us look like we don’t care.

                  But you also did this:

                  I talk about a child shot by police when they were aiming for their dog, you say “need a tissue”
                  I talk about a child forced by police to make child pornography, you say “need a tissue”
                  I talk about an innocent man who had his flesh torn out by a dog, you say “need a tissue”

                  You mock caring and empathy whenever it suits you. By ocking caring for these people you in turn mock them and devalue their suffering. And now have the gall to try to turn shamer and moral scolder because it suits your politics at the moment.

                  So scorn me. I wear it as a badge of honor. And before you try to turn the tables and say you too wear my scorn as a badge of honor, consider saying out loud in front of people you care about why I scorn you:

                  “This guy online think I’m a bad person just because I mocked him and some victims of a shooting a mauling and sex assault. But you know what? I’m proud of it.”

                  1. The tissue comment is the best thing I’ve ever wrote here.

                    So much butthurt.

                    1. The tissue comment is the best thing I’ve ever wrote here. So much butthurt.

                      Such a childish little troll you are. Unbelievable that a grown adult who claims to be a lawyer, is proud of such mockery and uses the word “butthurt” in reference to shooting and sex assault victims. Disgusting.

                    2. The “butthurt” is a reference to you, twit.

                    3. But what are we talking about Bob? What’s the substance? It’s me talking about specific real cases of violence and how they need a remedy and you mocking that. Then when I point out how gross that is and how gross that makes you, you chortle and say “butthurt.” You can’t even see how you might have been wrong to do that because you’re so committed to this “I’m a vile troll” bit.

                      I actually hope Arthur is right that you have a relatively sad real estate practice because under no circumstances would it be appropriate for you to be around people with real human difficulties.

        3. ” Yeah terrorists! ”

          Conviction (and endless detention) without trial is precisely the level of lawyering one should expect of a guy who checks $43,500 residential deeds for typographical errors for a living in Can’t-Keep-Up, Ohio.

          I sense Prof. Volokh is mainly looking out for Bob from Ohio when he censors the term “sl@ck-j@w” at this White, male, right-wing blog.

Please to post comments