Comments on: Senate movement on expanding Supremes’ cert jurisdiction over military justice cases

By: MJW1

MJW1 — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 02:32:15 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:53:28 +0000

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!

By: Comrade Cossio

Comrade Cossio — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:51:10 +0000

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

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:28:23 +0000

“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.

By: Bridget

Bridget — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:20:49 +0000

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

By: Late Bloomer

Late Bloomer — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:47:11 +0000

“No good reason not to have it” sounds like very bad legislative policy with a myriad of possible unintended consequences.

By: Ama Goste

Ama Goste — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:57:21 +0000

Who could be against it? DoD and Sen. Graham.

By: MJW1

MJW1 — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:30:59 +0000

NBMIII wanted to get his case reviewed and with a name like “Equal Justice for Our Military Act” who could possibly be against it?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:33:38 +0000

Fairness, equity, no good reason not to have it (IMO).

By: Late Bloomer

Late Bloomer — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:09:13 +0000

Just curious, what was the impetus for this? Is/Was there an overwhelming need for expanded SCOTUS cert. jx over miljus cases?