Professor Steve Vladeck criticizes CAAF’s CCR opinion

6 Responses to “Professor Steve Vladeck criticizes CAAF’s CCR opinion”

1. ConLaw says:

   April 17, 2013 at 8:00 PM  

   Yep.  Goldsmith means the CAAF can’t interefere w/ action by the executive which may impact on some way on MilJus, like dropping from the rolls abolishing jurisdiction.  Majority unsurprisingly reads it too broadly.
   The trial court, because it as a court, had inherent power to control the access.  The CCA had jurisdiction to review that, and the CAAF in turn had jurisdiction to review the decision of the CCA.  Sorry, but it should have been simple stuff.
2. Charlie Gittins says:

   April 17, 2013 at 8:14 PM  

   CAAF is all wet.  It has jurisdiction.   Thank goodness for the intellect of Judge Baker and  Senior Judge Cox.  Hopefully, the CMCR decision will be overturned by a real court.
    
    
3. Christian Deichert says:

   April 18, 2013 at 12:37 PM  

   Almost seems anticipatory of the Air Force special victim advocate cases that may be coming CAAF’s way.
4. Christian Deichert says:

   April 18, 2013 at 12:38 PM  

   Sorry — Special Victims Counsel.
5. SFC V says:

   April 18, 2013 at 8:01 PM  

   Let’s make this more complicated than it has to be.
    
   Some court has to have jurisdiction and punting just means that someone else will have to take up the case.  While we’re meddling with the UCMJ how about congress clarify the military courts’ authority to decide these collateral issues?  Why not err on the side of deciding these issues?  If SCOTUS believes the military courts lack jurisdiction I’m sure they will find time to let them know.   
    
6. stewie says:

   April 19, 2013 at 1:35 PM  

   Maybe, but by the time that court hears the case, the trial will be done and the ROT will be authenticated (probably) and then public record.