Habeas

The reasoning from the bar, in relation to it, may be answered by the single observation, that for the meaning of the term habeas corpus, resort may unquestionably be had to the common law; but the power to award the writ by any of the courts of the United States, must be given by written law. ❋ Unknown (2007)

But there's one part that I vigorously disagree with, and that is taking away the jurisdiction of the federal courts on what we call habeas corpus, which is the great writ that goes all the way back to 1215. ❋ Unknown (2006)

When asked to define the term habeas corpus, the capital’s best were stumped. ❋ Unknown (2007)

Arguing that Quirin or Eisentrager stand for the proposition that enemy have a right to habeas is flat wrong. ❋ Unknown (2010)

Arguing that Quirin or Eisentrager stand for the proposition that enemy have a right to habeas is flatwrong. ❋ Unknown (2010)

The fights are fought over the death penalty mitigation Strickland these days, especially in habeas cases. ❋ Unknown (2010)

This is consistent with many cases that have found that prisoners do not have the right to counsel in habeas cases (which is what is at issue here), even where the habeas case presents the first crack at the claims at issue. ❋ Unknown (2010)

I think the Supremes collectively feel that if Judge Moore or Judge Clay or Judge Reinhardt wants to pronounce Constitutional policy in habeas cases, then the President can name those Judges to the Supreme Court, but not until then. ❋ Unknown (2010)

The Supreme Court avoided the result that that was an unconstitutional rule of decision by explaining that AEDPA restricted the subject-matter jurisdiction of the district courts in habeas cases so that jurisdiction only exists when the state court ruling met the deferential standard. ❋ Unknown (2010)

And pro-bono work in habeas cases is NOT “highly sanctioned” under the constitution. ❋ Unknown (2010)

The issues in habeas corpus cases, that make up the largest share of the docket are analytically very similar to administrative law cases, because they involve questions of how much to defer to other governmental actors in the context of an elaborate statutory scheme, and also almost always involve federal constitutional rights. ❋ Unknown (2010)

The spate of reversals is also notable because the Sixth Circuit has been so divided in habeas cases of late. ❋ Unknown (2010)

Let me be clear, habeas is only used to end unlawful detention. ❋ Unknown (2010)

While dressed in habeas garb, this case is really a conservative-liberal dispute over how to apply Miranda. ❋ Unknown (2010)

I'm not sure the AG actually meant what you think he meant, but even assuming that he did, the position that the Suspension Clause does not guarantee an individual right to habeas is not necessarily a crazy or dictatorial one. ❋ Unknown (2007)

Gonzalez's sophistry can only mean one thing: he intends to take the position that the right of habeas is not a "great constitutional privilege" as Marshall called it, and the suspension clause is a nullity. ❋ Unknown (2007)