Scalia claims detainees have no rights

[mburbank]

I assure you, it's because of my role in the conspiracy. But don't tell anyone.

My main question to your question would be, since we've already released multiple detainees after determining that they weren't terrorists or in some cases even combatants, how can a responsible jurist simply make a blanket statement lie that? And while he can have preconcieved notions about issues of constitutionality (only a complete idiot wouldn't, though many of the current justices have claimed just that during their hearings) I question if he's fit to hear a case that he's basically said already has no standing before he hears it? He gets to vote not to hear cases that have no merrit, just like all the other justices. The Supreme court refuses to hear cases all the time. If the court agrees to hear a case, aren't they supposed to judge it? This sounds a lot like he's saying, I'll go, but nothing that happens there is meaningful. Why hold court at all, then. Couldn't they just send in their judgement by mail, and maybe save us taxpayers some moolah?


Oh, and listen, thanks for not getting all up in my grill and telling me my post means I don't care about detainees or soldiers and that I'm not funny and should spend more time with my kids. I appreciatte your courtesty. I find personal attacks so... wounding. I know I'd never do it.