Edited sentence: " The brief noted, quite accurately, that this Graham-Kyl colloquy was "simply an effort to achieve after passage of the Act precisely what [they] failed to achieve in the legislative process.Court of Appeals for the District of Columba, Slate's Emily Bazelon reports that court "issued an unusual order rejecting" their amicus brief alone, although they accepted five others.Hamdan's lawyers, however, spotted the hoax.In their opposition to the motion to dismiss the case, they advised the Court that the supposedly conflicting legislative history was entirely invented after the fact, and that it consisted of "a single scripted colloquy that never actually took place, but was instead inserted into the record after the legislation had passed.Nevertheless, when Graham and Kyl sought to file the very same brief, a month later, with the U.No one familiar with this remarkable behavior by Graham and Kyl can doubt why the court did not want to hear from these senators.Out of an apparent concern for interbranch comity, the High Court has chosen to ignore the bogus brief filed by Senators Graham and Kyl, rather than reprimanding the Senators.There, Justice Stevens concluded correctly that the Congress had not stripped the Court of jurisdiction with the DTA.Ultimately, the Supreme Court did not decide the jurisdictional issue until it rendered its full ruling on June 29 of this year.[The Hoax Fails: The Supreme Court Is Not Fooled]