Senate movement on expanding Supremes’ cert jurisdiction over military justice cases
On 11 June 2009, the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy held a hearing on H.R. 569, which would expand the Supermes’ cert jurisdiction to reach cases in which CAAF denied review as well as those that CAAF actually heard. We discussed that hearing here. On 30 July, the subcommittee marked up the bill and then forwarded it to the full House Judiciary Committee by voice vote. Since then — nothing. Until this week, that is.
NBM3 notes here on his blog that on Monday, Senator Feinstein offered an amendment to an amendment of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010 that would expand the Supremes’ cert jurisdiction to reach cases in which CAAF denies review. The pages from the Congressional Record containing the proposed amendment are available here. The amendment’s language is identical to S. 357, the Equal Justice for United States Military Personnel Act of 2009, which Senator Feinstein introduced in January. That language, however, differs to some extent from that in the marked up version of H.R. 569.
The second recommendation of the Cox Commission II report (which is available here) is to “[e]nact the Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2009, now pending in the House of Representatives.”
Just curious, what was the impetus for this? Is/Was there an overwhelming need for expanded SCOTUS cert. jx over miljus cases?
Fairness, equity, no good reason not to have it (IMO).
NBMIII wanted to get his case reviewed and with a name like “Equal Justice for Our Military Act” who could possibly be against it?
Who could be against it? DoD and Sen. Graham.
“No good reason not to have it” sounds like very bad legislative policy with a myriad of possible unintended consequences.
Any concern over the perceived burden of expanding cert for military cases could be blunted by allowing accused to waive appeal in PTA. Is it really such a bad idea for the one Article I court dedicated to criminal justice? It might obviate largely futile and no doubt more burdensome attempts at collateral review of Mil Jus matters
“No good reason not to have it” sounds like very bad legislative policy with a myriad of possible unintended consequences.”
Only if you ignore the first two reasons I gave. :)
Well this’ll help my case out. If OSI every completes the FOIA request I sent….I gotta call those guys later.
BTW,
Hasan has Charges now (obviously there will be more fine tuning later)
Army: Fort Hood suspect charged with murder (Suprise, wonderful headline AP)
How about this instead:
Hasan to be Court-Martialed on thirteen counts of murder in Ft. Hood Massacre
A 10x Better headline.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091112/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_fort_hood_shooting_charges
Considering the fact that the Supreme’s Cert. docket is at the smallest number in history since the 1900′s, it’s “much ado about (virtually) nothing.”
Colonel Graham is probably still hoping for his Star!
I found a new reason to live. Clicking thumbs up for all of Cossio’s comments. Not because I agree with any of them (I rarely do), but because I’m sick and tired of the pompous regulars who would seek to censor his views, as ludicrous as they may be.
Oh, to be equal we need to get rid of allowing the accused and TDC from being present at the “grand jury,” of the pre-sentencing hearing in most guilty pleas, care inquiry: DEAD, get rid of Art. 31(b) requirements that add to Miranda, mandatory review of most military cases, CCA review of the facts allowing for “acquittals” on appeal, and our insane precedent of allowing relief under Art 66 for post-trial delay when there is no actual prejudice (Not sure how an otherwise appropriate sentence for the offense and offender becomes a sentence that should not be approved due to unrelated events that occur after the trial). Of course we would also require unanimous juries. I’m sure there is more, but I have to go back to reading why the military, with all its recent death penalty case successes, should be taking the Fort Hood case. I’ll let you speculate why this is, I don’t want to run afoul of certain provisions in the UCMJ.
OpenOffice Download…
[...Kindly Accept This Swapping Invitation...]…