Thus spake George Washington University law professor Stephen A. Saltzburg in 2008 comments to The New York Times on the Congressional Budget Office's contention that lifting the statutory restrictions that prevent the lion's share of military personnel convicted by courts-martial from petitioning for discretionary review by the United States Supreme Court would cost the taxpayers $1,000,000 per year.
For balance, The Times quoted Robert E. Reed of the Department of Defense Office of General Counsel:
“A lot of those supporters [of lifting the restrictions on access to the Supreme Court] are only looking at this as a motherhood, apple pie sort of issue,” he said. “There’s a logic and a rationale to this. We’re not just trying to be mean and difficult for the defendants.”So what, you might ask, has happened in the intervening years? Nada.
Sadly, you are again correct. But I don't understand the statement that "[w]e're not just trying to be mean and difficult for the defendants." How is denying independent review by the nation's highest court not "trying to be difficult." If the goal is "justice," why not allow review? If the military courts are in fact effectuating justice, then what is the fear or the concern? Or is the concern that once the SCOTUS gets to look at cases that have not been cherry picked and approved for review by the military appeals process, the SCOTUS may start questioning how the sausage is in fact being made? I can't believe that failing to fix this this is even susceptible of debate.
ReplyDelete