Saturday, December 30, 2006

Te(t)chy Judges, Aren't They

In a 2 to 1 decision yesterday, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said it would not accept the judges' brief on a legal technicality, saying the title "judge" should not be used to describe former judges in legal proceedings. The court is examining whether "enemy combatants" should be allowed to challenge their detention in U.S. courts.
[The (poorly reported) rest of the story...]
I say "poorly reported" because the article fails to clarify to what specific "title" the Appeal's judges are referring. What was the title of the FotC brief they submitted?

How can one possibly come to a conclusion as to the value and legality of their decision without seeing the thing upon which it was based? Must the WaPo generally leave their best, most comprehensive coverage for their reporters to do on their personal time?

Arrrhhg . . . Anyhow, back to the reason for the dismissal.
The appeals panel's more conservative judges, David B. Sentelle and A. Raymond Randolph, issued the opinion, with Judge Judith W. Rogers, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, dissenting.
Oh. Wonderful . . .

I'll be checking SCOTUSblog - not something I do often enough - for the missing clarity on this one.

4 comments:

  1. I'm in the same boat, Pop.

    There's nothing new on the S-blog today, so... Not that "knowing" would change their decision, eh. Still . . . Lame reporting.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why not? If it were a lawyer and Congress-critter submitting the brief would you fail to use their proper title..."Representative Critter"?

    [kvatch,kvatch]

    ReplyDelete