Not from everybody. It was a five/four decision by the Supreme Court, with the four confirmed knuckledraggers opposing the ruling that detainees at Guantanamo have a Constitutional right to challenge their detention.
It's about time we learn to separate conservatism (a respectable set of political beliefs) from anger and ignorance, provincialism and racism. America is either a member of the 21st century civilized world community or it's not. Let's not mince words anymore. But if we're smart, we'll hold off on celebrating the Court's half-step today away from ditching the Constitution.
“The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court.
The ruling came in the latest battle between the executive branch, Congress and the courts over how to cope with dangers to the country in the post-9/11 world. Although there have been enough rulings addressing that issue to confuse all but the most diligent scholars, this latest decision, in Boumediene v. Bush, No. 06-1195, may be studied for years to come.
The justices rejected the administration’s argument that the individual protections provided by the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 were more than adequate.
“The costs of delay can no longer be borne by those who are held in custody,” Justice Kennedy wrote, assuming the pivotal rule that some court-watchers had foreseen.
Joining Justice Kennedy’s opinion were Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter.
I hope the Hillary Clinton supporters who say they'll vote for McCain, allowing their political resentments to rule as four justices did, will take a fresh look at the diminishing list of justices willing to separate the law from politics.
