Congress to Courts: 'Get Out of the War on Terror': Difference between revisions

From Discourse DB
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
 
(Better URL)
Line 3: Line 3:
|source=The Wall Street Journal
|source=The Wall Street Journal
|date=October 19, 2006
|date=October 19, 2006
|url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116121703953197111.html
|url=http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009113
|quote="In Hamdan, the court moved to sweep aside decades of law and practice so as to forge a grand new role for the courts to open their doors to enemy war prisoners. Led by John Paul Stevens and abetted by Anthony Kennedy, the majority ignored or creatively misread the court's World War II precedents. The approach catered to the legal academy, whose tastes run to swashbuckling assertions of judicial supremacy and radical innovations, rather than hewing to wise but boring precedents."
|quote="In Hamdan, the court moved to sweep aside decades of law and practice so as to forge a grand new role for the courts to open their doors to enemy war prisoners. Led by John Paul Stevens and abetted by Anthony Kennedy, the majority ignored or creatively misread the court's World War II precedents. The approach catered to the legal academy, whose tastes run to swashbuckling assertions of judicial supremacy and radical innovations, rather than hewing to wise but boring precedents."
}}
}}

Revision as of 16:00, October 20, 2006

This is an opinion item.

Author(s) John Yoo
Source The Wall Street Journal
Date October 19, 2006
URL http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009113
Quote
Quotes-start.png "In Hamdan, the court moved to sweep aside decades of law and practice so as to forge a grand new role for the courts to open their doors to enemy war prisoners. Led by John Paul Stevens and abetted by Anthony Kennedy, the majority ignored or creatively misread the court's World War II precedents. The approach catered to the legal academy, whose tastes run to swashbuckling assertions of judicial supremacy and radical innovations, rather than hewing to wise but boring precedents." Quotes-end.png


Add or change this opinion item's references


This item argues against the position Supreme Court was correct in its ruling on the topic Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.


This item argues against the position Act should not have been passed on the topic Military Commissions Act of 2006.