Santiago v. Rumsfeld 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 2005

Courtesy C-SPAN, courts.gov

9th Circuit Court of Appeals
4/06/2005, C-SPAN Product ID: 186185-1

From C-SPAN's Description:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th District heard oral argument in the case of Santiago v. Rumsfeld. Sergeant Emiliano Santiago, a member of the Oregon Army National Guard, had two weeks left of an 8-year agreement to serve in the National Guard when was he ordered to Afghanistan for a year or more. Sergeant Santiago sought an injunction to stop his deployment to Afghanistan while he challenged the "stop loss" order that requires him to remain in the military beyond the term of his enlistment contract.

After hearing oral argument, the Ninth Circuit's three-judge panel affirmed the lower court's decision in favor of the government's argument and denied an injunction to stop Sergeant Santiago's deployment to Afghanistan.

The case was heard in the moot courtroom of the University of Washington School of Law.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Santiago
• v.
• Rumsfeld
• 9th
• Circuit
• Court
• of
• Appeals
• 2005
• Sergeant
• Emiliano
• Oregon
• Army
• National
• Guard
• Afghanistan
• military
• enlistment
• contract
• moot
• courtroom
• University
• Washington
• School
• Law

[pathetic321]

13:50

this judge doesn't come across as a intellect powerhouse, rather a fool who doesn't know what he's doing.

Bless the man, he looks confused lol.

[demalikavinodani]

Cool site for search Real Latino women for marriages busizz4me.info

[jpsartrean]

@jpsartrean When Congress provides its approval/consent, the President's power is at its apex. Judicial review is diminished when the other branches are in agreement. Do not forget that democracy and the political process did NOT cease after 9/11...

Leaders - for better or for worse - are put into power by THE PEOPLE. Only THE PEOPLE can re-elect or replace them....

Have a happy holiday, and hopefully the new year will be a better one for us all.

[jpsartrean]

"These kinds of attacks may be shocking, and tragic, but they are not an existential threat to the United States." Extremism of any kind is always a threat - particularly that based on religious fundamentalism. America should always and everywhere seek to promote its greatest ideals - pluralism and opportunity. Extremist idealogues cannot be allowed to undermine these ideals through acts of terror. You forget that Congress OVERWHELMINGLY supported the President after 9/11. (cont)

[disamjisa]

@jpsartrean (reply part 4) Far more people die in road accidents than have ever died in terrorist attacks. But US policy makers and a gullible minority of Americans seem to believe that any price is worth paying to prevent a terrorist attack. These kinds of attacks may be shocking, and tragic, but they are not an existential threat to the United States. From a pragmatic, economic point of view, the US has spent far too much attempting (or pretending to attempt) to prevent "another 9/11".

[disamjisa]

@jpsartrean (part 3) Finally, Americans are as histrionic about 9/11 as Israelis are about the holocaust (and I am a Jew). The 9/11 attacks were terrible, but the US could have more easily absorbed another 9/11 than it could the costs in blood and treasure of the invasion of Iraq and multiple decade occupation of Afghanistan. How many soldiers need to die, how many dollars need to be spent, how many guys have to have their junk groped by TSA thugs, to prevent any act of terrorism?

[disamjisa]

@jpsartrean (reply part 2) My comment was aimed mainly at the fact that a significant number of Americans I meet believe that the oath is to "protect the country from all enemies, foreign and domestic"; the only thing the President swears to "preserve, protect and defend" is the constitution.

[disamjisa]

@jpsartrean The President is not a power unto himself. He holds executive power constained by the constitution and legislation. An imperial presidency is not what the founders had in mind. The legal arguments here, about stop-loss, are not specious. Stop loss is legal, but the fact it even has to be used is an indication of how unpopular US foreign policy is. (continued)

[jpsartrean]

@disamjisa don't forget PRESERVE.... When you have foreign hijackers flying suicide missions into major buildings in your country, I think it fair to claim that is a direct assault on the country - and thus the underlying Constitution - itself. Also, you might want to read up on Article II some time...

[bimboblacky]

I am aware of the PRECISE Presidential oath, but isn't that individual placed into the status of COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF by that same Constitution once inaugurated? DOES that officer not hold the responsibility for supervising the military in the safest and effective way possible??? I know that other poster said the Circuit judge said "protect and defend the COUNTRY," so I start 2 have issues with that, but 4 somewhat different reasons, eh? (Remember COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF role & its requisite duties).