tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post95244258746810496..comments2023-08-24T10:39:23.460-04:00Comments on CAAFlog: JurisdictionpaloozaDwight Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11657981110237418710noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-20587408173774005382007-11-18T23:07:00.000-05:002007-11-18T23:07:00.000-05:00I'm not surprised the AF appellate government folk...I'm not surprised the AF appellate government folks took the position they did, considering they earlier this year attempted to appeal an adverse AFCCA Article 62 decision.<BR/><BR/>They're being consistent, at least.Christopher Mathewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01613318712384842689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-34885665823080276372007-11-16T20:41:00.000-05:002007-11-16T20:41:00.000-05:00JOC is certainly correct here. Chief Judge Everet...JOC is certainly correct here. Chief Judge Everett's analysis of the legislative history of Article 62 should be decisive. Congress considered making the CCA's the final say on this issue but rejected such a provision. The current regime, where the civilian judges at the CAAF preside over all appellate issues and protect the rights of servicemembers from those under the influence of the barracks, is consistent with the intent of the framers of the UCMJ. Having heard the arguments, I think that the CCA's will thankfully not be the final word on government appeals. If there is one reform suggested by professor Morgan that should be realized, it is the civilianization of the CCA's. Until that happens, they should never be the final say on anything. I wish only that I could have been present for this modern Crispin's day.Guert Gansevoorthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15166200402003364021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-55793458927925910972007-11-15T20:55:00.000-05:002007-11-15T20:55:00.000-05:00Well, Mr. Anonymous #2, I was trying to say both. ...Well, Mr. Anonymous #2, I was trying to say both. I think the better statutory reading in that the CAAF has juisdiction. That's what I was trying to say in my first sentence.<BR/><BR/>My second sentence was saying that I think having jurisdiction is better policy. Note, however, that this sentence is couched in how I would feel as a legislator, because a statute that denies jurisdictrion would be entitled to enforcement even if it were the inefficient result.John O'Connorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08014476389355562158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-14680814185929609472007-11-15T20:42:00.000-05:002007-11-15T20:42:00.000-05:00Better because it is more efficient JOC? Or bette...Better because it is more efficient JOC? Or better because it is more correct as a matter of statutory interpretation with respect to a court of strictly limited jurisdiction. Ripping of shirts, throwing of MCMs, roundhouse kicks -- why did the rest of us miss this argument?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-84347579940874543062007-11-15T14:00:00.000-05:002007-11-15T14:00:00.000-05:00You forgot to mention the part where defense appel...You forgot to mention the part where defense appellate counsel for Lopez de Victoria ripped off his shirt, threw his MCM at Judge Stuckey, and then performed a spectacular roundhouse kick on Judge Baker.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-62253643342866726382007-11-15T11:37:00.000-05:002007-11-15T11:37:00.000-05:00I understand the argument that there's no jurisdic...I understand the argument that there's no jurisdiction, but I think the better argument is that there is.<BR/><BR/>I also think that, if I were a legislator, I would want there to be jurisdiction.John O'Connorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08014476389355562158noreply@blogger.com