The Flimsy Case Against Mary Surratt

[wpbinzel]

(01-21-2019 05:43 PM)mike86002000 Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 04:04 PM)wpbinzel Wrote:  Another Mike - We will have to respectfully agree to disagree.

One correction, though. While the holding of the Supreme Court in Milligan was unanimous, the "ruling" or opinion of the Court was 5 to 4, hence Judge Boynton's reference to the majority and minority opinions. Justice Davis delivered the opinion of the Court and was joined by four other Justices (Clifford, Field, Grier and Nelson). Chief Justice Chase and three other Justices (Wayne, Swayne, and Miller) agreed with the result but filed a separate concurring opinion that was less restrictive than the majority opinion.

The distinction between a decision and a ruling is a technicality. The decision of the court was unanimous. As I acknowledged above in this thread, four justices thought it necessary to state that that the Congress had the power to pass laws that would make military tribunals legal. They also noted that they had not done so. That's hardly a restriction on the unanimous decision.
Mike

No, it is not just a technicality. The rationale and reasoning behind a court's decision is every bit as important as the result, if not more. In Milligan, there were two opinions, a majority opinion and a minority opinion. Above, where you wrote: "The ruling in "Milligan" was unanimous, not just a "majority", as Boynton says.", you are misconstruing Boynton's reference to the majority opinion.