All of the judges below concluded that plaintiff s core mory is by eight ball and they had the merger theer of liability, promising liability on the alleged decision of attorney general ashcroft to merge the new york list of detainees which had not been fully vetted by the ins list and continue to hold until cleared policy for detainees on both lists. The liability does not attach here for at least three reasons. First, the bivins remedy should not be extended to National Security and immigration policy decisions by senior officials in the wake of the september 11th attacks. In the damage remedy is to be impose side for not congress to do so. The list merger theory suffers from the same pleading deficiencies that the court identified in it ball itself. Among other thing, there is an alternative and a list merger decision. Given the uncertainty about the status of detainees on the new york list, the list merger was undertaken to avoid the inadvertent or premature release of a dangerous
May it please the court. This marks the return to the from the sames extraordinary circumstances in the wake of the september 11 terrorist attacks. The judges concluded the theory is disclosed. All of the judges below concluded that plaintiffs core theory is squarely foreclosed by iqbal, but the Second Circuit majority formulated their own list merger theory of liability, premising on the alleged decision of attorney general ashcroft to merge the new york list of detainees with the ins list, therefore continuing the hold until clear policy for detainees on both lists. Bivens liability does not attach for at least three reasons. First, the bivens remedy should not be extended to National Security and policy decisions by senior officials in the wake of the september 11 attacks. If the damages remedy is to be imposed, it is for congress, not the work, to do so. Second, the list merger theory suffers from the same deficiencies this court identified in kickball itself. Among other things, t
Who have been down this road many times. Criminal investigations are designed to find out if a crime was committed and hold somebody responsible. Congress has a broader mandate, were not prosecutors, but our goal is to shed light on information that may be highly significant but not necessarily criminal. Adjust policy as needed, change laws when appropriate. But in a particular circumstance, find out what happened, not as a prosecutor but as a policymaker. Mr. Rosenburg said in the absence of a constitutional privilege or selfimposed statutory restriction upon its authority, congress and its committees have a virtual pliniary power needed to discharge legislative functions. I think its true but its bounded by the respect for the criminal process. So were trying to find out where that boundary exists, how to navigate this problem, and proceed in an orderly manner so we do not get in the way of mr. Muller, but we discharge our duties to the public at large. After i cut my phone off, ill
Number 759, ernest, Petitioner Versus arizona. Against wade. The decisions that the court took that were quite unpopular. Lets go through a few cases that illustrate very dramatically, and visually what it means to live in a society of 310 million different people who helped stick together because they believed in the rule of law. Good evening, welcome to cspan and the National Constitution centers landmark cases. Exploring 12 Historic Supreme Court decision. Tonights case is schenck versus the United States. It is a case from 1919, involving freedom of speech around world war i. It also gave rise to Supreme Courts most quoted phrases, shouting fire in a theater and clear and present danger. Our two guests are with us to tell us about this interesting case, to take calls and questions. Beverly is a history professor at Yale University specializing in 20th century american history. He is the author of the day wall up of exploring america. Welcome to our program. Tom is a Supreme Court a
Number 759, ernest, Petitioner Versus arizona. Against wade. The decisions that the court took that were quite unpopular. Lets go through a few cases that illustrate very dramatically, and visually what it means to live in a society of 310 million different people who helped stick together because they believed in the rule of law. Good evening, welcome to cspan and the National Constitution centers landmark cases. Exploring 12 Historic Supreme Court decision. Tonights case is schenck versus the United States. It is a case from 1919, involving freedom of speech around world war i. It also gave rise to Supreme Courts most quoted phrases, shouting fire in a theater and clear and present danger. Our two guests are with us to tell us about this interesting case, to take calls and questions. Beverly is a history professor at Yale University specializing in 20th century american history. He is the author of the day wall up of exploring america. Welcome to our program. Tom is a Supreme Court a