I have precious little good to say about Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. In the interest of giving credit where credit's due, though, let's take a quick look at a couple of his opinions from late in the recently-concluded Supreme Court term.
First, Scalia pecker-slapped the Bush administration good and hard in his dissenting opinion in
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.
Hamdi was the case involving an American citizen captured in Afghanistan, designated an "enemy combatant" and imprisoned in the U.S. for over two years without being charged or afforded a hearing.
A plurality of four Justices bought the government's ludicrous argument that Congress expressly authorized the detention of "enemy combatants" under certain circumstances, but decided that "due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker." Two other Justices couldn't swallow the authorized detention argument, but concurred in the judgment so that the Court could issue a majority ruling. The Court did not say what qualifies as a "meaningful opportunity" or a "neutral decisionmaker."
Scalia wasn't having any of it. His position is clear and, IMO, entirely accurate: Hamdi's an American citizen. Absent a constitutionally proper Congressional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus under Art. I, sec. 9, cl. 2 of the Constitution, the government has to charge him with a crime or let him go. Scalia's opinion is a masterpiece from beginning to end.[1]
Second, Scalia delivered the opinion for a 5-4 majority in
Blakely v. Washington. There, a criminal defendant plead guilty to second degree kidnapping, an offense that warrants a prison sentence of 49 to 53 months under Washington law. However, the trial judge imposed a sentence of 90 months based on his finding that the defendant acted with "deliberate cruelty." That finding allowed the judge to impose additional time under the Washington's sentencing scheme.
"Bullshit," said Scalia. The Sixth Amendment, which affords a right to a jury trial in criminal cases, requires that the facts supporting an enhanced sentence must be either admitted by the defendant or found by a jury.
Federal courts all over the country are now scrambling to figure out what effect
Blakely has on the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which are a whole lot more onerous than the Washington scheme. Scalia has managed to call into question the validity of thousands upon thousands of criminal sentences at both the state and federal levels. That's a ballsy move any way you slice it.
Praising Scalia makes me feel unclean all the way to the marrow. Looks like I'll be spending the rest of the day in the shower. I only hope that the water heater is up to the job.
[1] By way of contrast, check out Thomas's dissent. Thomas basically says that the president can do whatever he goddamn jolly well pleases during times of war.
Scalia Shoots, Scalia Scores
Threaded Mode
