Orrin Hatch: “This argument before the Supreme Court was made by the President's Solicitor General, who I know was pushed into this…”

“This argument before the Supreme Court was made by the President's Solicitor General, who I know was pushed into this position by others who apparently have enough power in the Solicitor General's Office beneath him to force him into this untenable situation. No sooner--in a little over a month--after enacting the antiterrorism bill, with clearly the most part of that bill being habeas corpus reform, the Solicitor General walks into the Supreme Court and undermines that very reform, with an argument that would create a tremendous loophole, by hoping to convince the Supreme Court that they can ignore Marbury versus Madison and grant themselves jurisdiction that the Constitution does not grant and neither does the Congress. And, frankly, I could not believe it when I heard the Solicitor General make the argument that he did. I feel badly that I did not argue for our side in Court but I just did not want to have it look like I was grandstanding, or something like that. The fact of the matter is that, if the Solicitor General's position is accepted, there will be a direct appeal to the Supreme Court mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, nowhere in statutory law because we are not allowed under Marbury versus Madison to expand the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, or to detract from it. I will surprised if the Supreme Court grants that. But there was not an effective argument in my opinion against that position in the Supreme Court even though the law is pretty clear.”