As I previously noted, 13 of the 16 Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee provided dissenting views to the committee’s recommendation of adoption of the Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2010, which would expand the Supreme Court’s certiorari jurisdiction to include military justice cases in which CAAF has denied review, as well as cases in which CAAF denies a petition for extraordinary relief.
Look at pages 14-16 of the report, in which the 13 dissenting committee members set out seven arguments purportedly against the bill. Those aren’t arguments against expanded cert jurisdiction; those are arguments against lifting the current requirement of a punitive discharge and/or a year of confinement to qualify for Article 66 appellate review. No such lifting of the jurisdictional prerequisites for Article 66 review is included in the bill. How does it happen that these points are included in a congressional committee report when they’re irrelevant to the legislation at issue? That strikes me as a major error.