Alas, the Golden CAAF II remains without a new home as the Supreme Court denied what was the best prospect of a certiorari grant in a Mil Jus case in some time.  Yesterday’s orders list (here) denied certiorari in United States v. Akbar, No. 15-1257.  Going to be a long cold winter without Mil Jus at SCOTUS again.  At this rate, the Golden CAAF II will be a full grown steer (or would it be a cow, not sure we’ve determined gender) by the time it finds a home.

9 Responses to “SCOTUS Denies Certiorari in Akbar”

  1. Cloudesley Shovell says:

    If it’s a binary choice between steer and cow, then the Golden CAAF II has no balls. 

  2. Jason Grover says:

    And so presumably Army and DOD GC will prepare a death warrant for the President to sign. Any guesses on how long it will sit in the inbox or what future Presidents might do with it?

  3. Dew_Process says:

    Actually, both Akbar and Caldwell had decent shots at certiorari imho.  While it may be tempting to think that SCOTUS treats most military cases as coming from the juridical J.V., according to 2 former SCOTUS law clerks that I’m friends with, it’s more likely that because of the way the MJ system is organized and the virtual lack of any meaningful post-trial litigation at the trial level to develop a decent record [and DuBay proceedings rarely allow for anything other than a very specific issue to be litigated], that the “record” isn’t that developed as in most criminal cases coming from either the federal or state systems.
    Akbar will now most likely move to the Article 71(a), UCMJ, review stage and then the habeas stage and proceed at 1/10th the speed of an average snail. 
    Caldwell, unless he can fund a post-conviction attack in federal court, is done absent some other stroke of luck.

  4. stewie says:

    Akbar is what about 15 or so years behind Gray (assuming any President ever actually signs?).  I don’t see Obama signing it, and I doubt it’s going to be high on Hillary’s to-do list.  He’ll die in prison of natural causes.

  5. k fischer says:

    The previous binary choice that cattlemen faced with a calf was either to allow it to remain a bull, or make it into a steer, aka a bull with no balls.
    With the Pentagon’s decision to fund gender reassignment surgery to the tune of $8.4 million, I think that there is a real possibility that the Golden CAAF should be given a trinary choice of remaining a bull, or becoming a steer through neutering or a cow by giving a steer a vagina.  Unless, of course, the Golden calf used to be a heifer and had its innie turned into an outie.
    And that, my friends, is your combination lesson for today on bovine husbandry and gender.

  6. Cloudesley Shovell says:

    k fischer,
    Beautiful! One of the best CAAFlog comments ever.
    Most humbly,

  7. stewie says:

    Why do you care whether someone gets their gender reassignment surgery paid for or not? We pay for all sorts of unnecessary surgeries already. Laser eye surgery, breast implants (yep, we do those in the military), it is my understanding we even do lipo.
    Or is it just the icky gay part you don’t like?

  8. k fischer says:

    I’m not a fan of breast enhancement surgery, either. Why are taxpayers dollars being used to make a person feel better about themselves. If it was reconstructive surgery because of a combat injury or cancer, then I can see the utility in that. What if PFC Snuffy didn’t like his micropenis? Could he get it augmented? I think you can tie in Lasik into a military need since it alleviates the need for glasses, which when knocked off by an IED blast would render a warrior ineffective. Think Velma of Scooby Doo.

    The gender reassignment surgery just seems to be a social experiment to see how we can study people who have a gender identity disorder. And quite frankly, I wouldn’t want our national security dependent on people like Bruce…..excuse me…..Caitlyn Jenner or Bradley……again, Sorry…..Chelsea Manning.

  9. stewie says:

    Of ALL the things, the millions and millions and millions of dollars the military absolutely WASTES on…your indignation is raised by what I’m guessing is a drop in the bucket?
    Your last paragraph is really the main point here, you don’t want your national security dependent on…certain people.
    Get over it. It’s the 21st Century. Other nation’s have had Transgenders serving for awhile now and their national security hasn’t collapsed. Shake off your ickyness and move on.