I don't think you quite caught the concept of my impeachment pondering. Congress obviously acted to limit the jurisdictional scope in the matter.

"[N]o court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba." seems fairly clear to me.

But what you bring up is a matter of interpretation. From reading other accounts, it looks like Kennedy was striving to limit the scope of the jurisdictional restriction as much as a matter of policy (checks and balances tension). Now congress can certainly pass a new law. But what if they decided that rather than passing a new law, they decided that the court should have just read the already passed law more clearly (again clearly in the sense of how congress may see it vs the justices).

I doubt very much that this will be done. The political ramifications would favor the GOP in the short term, but not the long term. Even so, it is interesting to speculate about.

Let's hear you say that when some terrorist beheads your children and wife.

Anderson:

It sure is good to know that we in America have "Constitutional Experts" like you to defend our rights as well as the rights of terrorists who are out to kill you.

Maybe someday, some "Upholders of Criminals Rights" will learn that "It is impossible to win an "Ally Fight" by being "Fair".

Then again, some of you don't have the intelligence to learn a thing.

Like I stated previously, 5 of the Supreme Court Judges are the "Bastards of America"

There is an old saying that when you point your finger at another and accuse them of something you are often, in reality, describing yourself. I think of this whenever Bush and his minions break out the "they hate freedom" line.

I dunno ... what would Herb's tune be if he'd spent a few months in Padilla's old cell?

"A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged; a liberal is a conservative who's been arrested."

Then you'll be overjoyed to learn that the Court held no such thing. The prisoners get to be tried according to "the laws of war" and are not, on this case, entitled to trial in civilian courts.

There is absolutely no logic or common sense to this decision other than the exercising of a radical left wing extremist court that answers to no one.

Spoken like one who's read the decision. Or not.

It upsets Herb no end that the Court doesn't act like al Qaeda.

Having said that, previously this administration asserted the "right" to hold any U.S. citizens it decided (under its unsupervised discretion) to be "enemy combatants" without trial indefinitely (and then to try them in Gitmo-style kangaroo courts whenever it got around to it), at least until the Supreme Court slapped them down in Hamdi last year. I guess it's a good thing (a) Hamdi was handed down and (b) you didn't wind up on the wrong side of someone in the national security apparatus with the power to toss you under the Navy brig in Charleston indefinitely.

I wonder what the 5 justices would have to say if they or their families suffered the injustices dished out by the Islamic extremist they are protecting. I wonder what they would have to say if they were denied US Government protection from the wrath of these same extremist they ruled are equal to the same rights as law abiding US Citizens that never harmed anyone. I wonder how they would rule if an airplane crashed into the Supreme Court building like happened at the world trade center towers.

I bet I know how they would feel and rule and you do to.

The 5 justices that made this ruling today have demonstrated that they are the "Bastards of Our Country"

I've linked to this post here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2006/06/re-bush-vows-to-pursue-detainee-war.html

If the 2005 legislation were the only legal issue, then this never would have made it to the SCOTUS in the first place - but it's not. Congress passed that specifically to forbid SCOTUS review of GITMO detainee habeas & military tribunal issues, and that's within Congress' power. Unfortunately, the specific way the administration implemented the tribunals (as Anderson notes) was in conflict with CA3 of the Geneva conventions which, being a fully-ratified treaty, is also federal law.

Congress can take things out of the SCOTUS ballpark that aren't explicitly put there by the Constitution, but playing referee when federal laws conflict IS explicitly the role of the federal judiciary. Nothing Congress does (short of successfully amending the Constitution itself) can take away the court's power to do exactly what it did today - they didn't rule contrary to the 2005 act, they just ruled that military tribunals protected by that act also had to follow pre-existing federal law (e.g., CA3).

If congress ever wanted to pick a turf war with the supremes, this would be the case to do it (since the executive branch is likely to back them).

But they won't because either (1) Congress can change the law and the President can use the now-proscribed procedures to try the detainees; or (2) the President can revise the procedures to conform to the UCMJ and laws of war and try the detainees under those procedures. Based on the reaction from Bush and Frist, it seems they're going with (1).

I haven't had time to read the dissents, but I thought Scalia's general position was that the Court had no jurisdiction whatsoever over anything that went on at Gittmo (at least with respect to non-citizens, and maybe even citizens), and therefore he wouldn't need to reach the retroactivity question.

In any event, it's a pretty damning cross-reference. Essentially, Congress says "a, b, and c are prohibited." In another section of the law, Congress says "b and c are prohibited retroactive to 2004," but says nothing about a. How do you interpret the silence on a? That its retroactive too but Congress simply "forgot" to make it so? Talk about judicial activism.

That is your interpretation. The senate might have another interpretation. Certainly 3 justices don't agree with you. If congress ever wanted to pick a turf war with the supremes, this would be the case to do it (since the executive branch is likely to back them). Just wondering out loud.

Whether Hamdan could be charged with conspiracy in said tribunals is an open question, since Kennedy didn't feel it needed to be addressed.

Between the lines, of course, you and I can guess that he was charged with "conspiracy" for want of even *secret* evidence that would prove more than "Hamdan hung with some really bad dudes."