The Flimsy Case Against Mary Surratt

[mike86002000]

(01-13-2019 06:57 PM)wpbinzel Wrote:  It is not a question of one court "overruling" another; it is a question of whether a decision of the Supreme Court is "on point"; i.e., whether the facts of a subsequent case fall within the Court's ruling. In this instance, a federal judge ruled that Milligan was not on point and, therefore, not applicable to the Lincoln assassination conspirators. That decision has never been overruled and, consequently, still stands.

Your correctly summarize the holding of the Court in Milligan. Where you are incorrect is the relevance and application of that ruling to the conspirators. The "fact" is that the only court of competent jurisdiction to consider the matter said that Milligan was not relevant or applicable to the Lincoln assassination conspirators. You certainly may disagree with Judge Boynton's ruling, but that is a matter of your opinion, and your opinion does not make it a fact.

You put it succinctly, thanks. It is indeed my opinion that "Milligan" should, and was intended to, apply to cases like Surratt's. I supported my argument by pointing out the similarities between the two cases.

As I understand Judge Boynton's argument, from the excerpt posted above, military jurisdiction was justified since Lincoln was Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces. Justified how? By law?

Mike