SENATOR< COLONEL, BUT NOT JUDGE
(reposted from jagcentral)
I have to confess, my only involvement with military law issues lately has been: (1) working on a law review-type article that may never be completed; and (2) hitting "refresh" on CAAF's opinions website to see if U.S. v. Lane had been handed down. The decision was handed down yesterday, and if you are reading this post you probably already know that the court held that Senator Graham's participation on the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals panel was reversible error. It is not clear whether the Solicitor General will file for cert.; what IS clear is all of the cases decided by Sen. Graham's panel (since Lane's case, if the objection was raised and preserved) will have to be reversed and remanded. So here's a handful of links on the subject. If I can find the time, I will try to update the list a bit, but as previous posting schedules demonstrate, the time is difficult to pin down.
I'm sure there will be more. A few of the commentators on Volokh said that if Sen. Graham's service as an appellate military judge violates Art I. Sec. 6, then so does his status as a reservist officer. Probably so, but that's none of CAAF's business and I'm not sure who would have standing to raise that claim.
One interesting tidbit: At the end of this month, Chief Judge Gierke (who authored the opinion of the court) and (formerly Chief) Judge Crawford (who wrote the dissent) will step down. (Their 15 year terms end on the same day, I think it's Sept. 30). If and when the President nominates new judges, those nominations will be taken up by the Senate Armed Services Comm., where Sen. Graham is a member. I believe, with some evidentiary support, that Sen. Graham is a very careful and ethical person. But I wonder if he could ask the nominees about the Lane case. This is especially throny if the government / solicitor general files a petition for cert., because then there is the very real possibility that the issue would be back before CAAF.
I have to confess, my only involvement with military law issues lately has been: (1) working on a law review-type article that may never be completed; and (2) hitting "refresh" on CAAF's opinions website to see if U.S. v. Lane had been handed down. The decision was handed down yesterday, and if you are reading this post you probably already know that the court held that Senator Graham's participation on the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals panel was reversible error. It is not clear whether the Solicitor General will file for cert.; what IS clear is all of the cases decided by Sen. Graham's panel (since Lane's case, if the objection was raised and preserved) will have to be reversed and remanded. So here's a handful of links on the subject. If I can find the time, I will try to update the list a bit, but as previous posting schedules demonstrate, the time is difficult to pin down.
- The Amicus Brief filed by the ACLU-National Capitol Region and the NIMJ
- Volokh Conspiracy - with my disjointed and mistyped comments
- How Appealing
- SCOTUS Blog
I'm sure there will be more. A few of the commentators on Volokh said that if Sen. Graham's service as an appellate military judge violates Art I. Sec. 6, then so does his status as a reservist officer. Probably so, but that's none of CAAF's business and I'm not sure who would have standing to raise that claim.
One interesting tidbit: At the end of this month, Chief Judge Gierke (who authored the opinion of the court) and (formerly Chief) Judge Crawford (who wrote the dissent) will step down. (Their 15 year terms end on the same day, I think it's Sept. 30). If and when the President nominates new judges, those nominations will be taken up by the Senate Armed Services Comm., where Sen. Graham is a member. I believe, with some evidentiary support, that Sen. Graham is a very careful and ethical person. But I wonder if he could ask the nominees about the Lane case. This is especially throny if the government / solicitor general files a petition for cert., because then there is the very real possibility that the issue would be back before CAAF.
posted by Lawyer Dad at 1:59 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home