Comments on: Seeking an even McKeel

By: Marcus Fulton

Marcus Fulton — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 23:03:00 +0000

Maybe the word in 67a that holds the key is the word “Decisions.” The article states that CAAF’s
“[d]ecisions” are subject to review. Is a decision an issue and a statement of a rationale leading to a conclusion, or is it the simple determination to affirm or set aside? The sixth edition of Blacks (the most recent edition on my shelf) says that a decision “is not necessarily synonymous with ‘opinion.’ A decision of the court is its judgment; the opinion is the reasons given for that judgment, or the expression of the views of the judge.”
If this is what “decision” means in 67a, then it leads one to think that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to take the case, not just an issue. But if “decision means “judgment,” what does that mean? Again, recourse to Blacks would indicate that “judgment” is refers to a final disposition of a case, rather than to an opinion or holding.
I imaging most people reading this will share my skepticism of a blunt (and perhaps overly simplistic) dictionary approach to this kind of question; but words have to mean something. Limitations aside, though, I think the results of this kind of scrutiny are consistent with the way the statute seems designed to work, common sense, and the implimenting portions of the MCM (RCM 1205), which indicates that certain “cases” are subject to review, rather than granted or certified issues.

By: gene fidell

gene fidell — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 17:12:00 +0000

Let me offer a variant on Marcus’s hypothetical: what if a case–without or without assigned issues–is granted on a specified issue (i.e., one the Court itself identifies)?

This entire arrangement is indefensible and it’s time to get it fixed. I don’t see why our fighting men and women, who put their lives on the line for us every day, don’t have precisely the same access to the highest court in the land as our fellow citizens, resident aliens, and nonresident aliens (exchange students? tourists? illegal immigrants?) who are convicted in the federal district courts or state courts.

It was wrong to make CMA a gatekeeper in the first place, and its wrong for CAAF to have that function today.

By: Marcus Fulton

Marcus Fulton — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 14:55:00 +0000

What if CAAF granted review of a case on a merits petition an summarily affirmed? What’s the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction then?

By: Marcus Fulton

Marcus Fulton — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 14:06:00 +0000

First of all, I was only in Columbus, Ohio for the five and a half years it took me to get through college. And as an alumnus of Ohio State University–the capital of the college football universe–why should I be tagged with the moniker “Columbus Clipper,” a reference to a minor league team held in derision even in Columbus?
As for the S.G.’s letter, I agree that it is strange that the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to hear issues CAAF affirmatively decided not to hear extends only to those cases in which CAAF decided to take another unrelated issue. But that’s by no means the strangest part of 67a. If Congress were to limit jurisdiction to only issues addressed by CAAF, you would have to come up with some definition of “issue,” or risk preventing the Supreme Court from tweaking a QP that needs fixed. And are we really worried about the Supreme Court clogging their docket with torrent of UMC or defective SJAR cases?