|HAMDAN v. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, et al.|
by Mike the Usurper at 1:33 pm EDT, Jun 29, 2006
(Of course in its discussion of legislative history the Court wholly ignores the President's signing statement, which explicitly set forth his understanding that the DTA ousted jurisdiction over pending cases.)
Of everything in the opinion, concurrences and dissents, nothing is as scary as this one line from Scalia. He is assigning, at minimum, the equivalence of legislative intent to a signing statement. The executive is not the legislative and equating them is a grossly pernicious error.
There is a redundant post from finethen not displayed in this view.