Comments on: United States v. Lane

By: Jason Grover

Jason Grover — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:24:00 +0000

Very true. Additionally, there are no real long-term negative consequences here for the government. So you can’t put a Senator on a CCA. Big deal. The case doesn’t establish horribly negative precedent for the government that needs to be corrected. I believe that the USAF might be intersted in approaching the SG, but I cannot believe the SG would actually petition the Supreme Court.

By: Marcus Fulton

Marcus Fulton — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 01:54:00 +0000

What are the politics of the government asking for cert in Lane?
Seems like the administration would have some opinion regarding raising the visibility of this issue. My first guess is that no one in the executive branch would want to draw additional attention to Sen. Graham’s JAG affiliation no matter what the context.

Any better guesses?

By: gene fidell

gene fidell — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 00:57:00 +0000

Just a short post to congratulate Dwight Sullivan on taking the initiative with CAAFLog in time for the end of one CAAF Term and the beginning of another. There has long been a need for a high-calibre military justice blog. NIMJ is happy to provide a link on the website, and we look forward to a useful exchange of views through this additional medium. BZ!

By: Mary Hall

Mary Hall — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:55:00 +0000

Ironic that Lane comes out just as TIME does a 2-page profile on Lindsey Graham.

By: Jason Grover

Jason Grover — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 13:34:00 +0000

Does that mean McKeel is the other most significant case from this term? (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/06-58.htm)

By: CAAFlog

CAAFlog — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 12:56:00 +0000

Since the Military Justice Act of 1983 extended the Supreme Court’s certiorari jurisdiction to include decisions by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, I believe there have been only 10 cases in which the Supremes have heard oral argument to review a CAAF decision. Lane may well be the 11th. That would be a sufficient, but not necessary, condition to qualify as “significant.”

By: Jason Grover

Jason Grover — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 07:43:00 +0000

Lane was certainly a fun and interesting case, but I disagree with the thought that it will be one of the most significant opinions of the term. Lane was a one-of-kind situation, presenting a novel constitutional issue. But consider some of the other cases that have come or are coming:

Moreno- will have much longer impact on military justice

Anthrax cases- still to come, but could hold that the entire DoD program was improper

Haney- Can appellate counsel be IAC for asking for enlargements

Quintanilla- Death sentence set aside

Loving- perhaps the entire RCM 1004 system set aside

Long- privacy interest in gov email

Magyari- some business records could be testimonial

Lane doesn't come close to being one of the most siginificant opinions of the term.