In his Denedo dissent, Chief Justice Roberts favorably quoted Judge Ryan’s criticism of DuBay haerings. See United States v. Denedo, 129 S. Ct. 2213, 2229 (2009) (Roberts, C.J., dissenting) (quoting Denedo v. United States, 66 M.J. 114, 136 (Ryan, J., dissenting)). And in her Loving dissent, Judge Ryan continues to be critical of DuBay hearings and the case that created them. See Loving v. United States, __ M.J. __, No. 06-8006/AR, slip op. at 1-2 n.1 (C.A.A.F. July 17, 2009). But, interestingly, her dissent includes what is obviously a rejoinder to Chief Justice Roberts’ characterization of the military justice system in Denedo.
In his Denedo dissent, Chief Justice Roberts quoted the Reid v. Covert plurality for the proposition that “[t]raditionally, military justice has been a rough form of justice emphasizing summary procedures, speedy convictions and stern penalties with a view to maintaining obedience and fighting fitness in the ranks.” Denedo, 129 S. Ct. at 2225 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting) (quoting Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 35-36 (1957) (plurality opinion)). In her Loving dissent, Judge Ryan writes:
Whatever its beginnings, far from being a “rough form of justice,” Reid v. Covert, 364 U.S. 1, 35 (1957), the military justice system today, including this Court, generally provides “substantial procedural protections and provision for appellate review by independent civilian judges [to] ‘vindicate servicemen’s constitutional rights.'” Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 586 (2006) (quoting Councilman, 420 U.S. at 758).
Loving, No. 06-8006/AR, slip op. at 22 n.11 (Ryan, J., dissenting).