We must've been over the target on something.
SUICIDE WATCH
BAKER IS NOTABLE
If they were trying to move something from an Art III court to Art 1, it must benefit someone to get it under a Congressionally authorized court vs an independent judicial branch court.
Art. III courts derive their power directly from the Constitution. They are the separate judicial branch and can counter Congress or the Executive.
At. 1 courts are created by Congress and can be trumped by Art. III courts, as in the Supreme Court.
So, if they are moving it to military, then it likely means it's a case against an ART. III judge/justice. Yep, that would call for that kind of lockdown.
Holy Shit
https://georgetownlawjournal.org/articles/48/military-courts-article-iii
Few areas of the Supreme Court’s federal courts jurisprudence raise as many questions—and provide as few coherent answers—as the permissible scope of Congress’s power to invest the “judicial [p]ower of the United States” in actors other than judges who enjoy Article III’s tenure and salary protections, and, in the case of criminal trials, to do so without the protections (especially the right to a local jury) enshrined in Article III, Section 2, Clause 3. Historically, the Court has identified three categories in which such “non-Article III” federal adjudication is permissible: (1) all adjudication by federal “territorial” courts; (2) certain criminal prosecutions before military judges; and (3) resolution of “public rights” disputes by non-Article III federal courts or federal administrative agencies. But it has never sought to explain whether the decisions articulating these principles “in fact support a general proposition and three tidy exceptions . . . or whether instead they are but landmarks on a judicial ‘darkling plain’ where ignorant armies have clashed by night.” . . .