Supreme Court
I had the good fortune to be at the Supreme Court this morning for the announcement of decisions in numerous momentous cases, followed by a small question and answer session with Justice Ginsburg.
Of course everyone is all over the detention cases, but I was equally gratified to be there to hear the outcomes of Patane and Seibert, two very important Miranda cases that I studied in CrimPro.
I do not have a lot to add to the commentary being contributed by others (especially at ScotusBlog), but I can say it was quite a day to have been in the court. Tom Goldstein summarizes well:
There were an array of opinions from the bench in the detention cases today. By far, the most striking and passionate were those of Justice Scalia concurring in Hamdi and Justice Stevens dissenting in Padilla. Justice Scalia argued forcefully that the government must charge Hamdi with treason in court, and the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus has a vital tradition and could be suspended only by Congress through democratic means. Justice Stevens, using exceptionally strong rhetoric, argued that the detention of Padilla incommunicado amounted to the “tools of a tyrant.”
The speeches of both Scalia and Stevens were stirring. Justice Ginsburg was entertaining (but appropriately reserved). All in all, a wonderful experience.
