From the weblog of Aaron Swartz comes this nice, succinct graphic on where various Supreme Court justices come down on a burning question of the day: When can I keep an enemy combatant?
Oh, and if you’re looking for an example of the kind of clear-headed patriotic response recent Supreme Court rulings have engendered among certain of the right-leaning weblog set, look no further than Michael Williams (Rasul v. Bush):
It seems like today’s Supreme Court ruling that the detainees being held at Guantanamo must have access to US courts could pose major problems for the War on Terror, as well as for more conventional future wars. How is our military supposed to manage foreign military prisoners if each one must be given a lawyer and access to courts thousands of miles away? Justice Scalia apparently agrees with this objection (starting on page 26), and Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog agrees with my interpretation.
I think Congress and the President should draw a line in the sand and ignore this decision. The Constitution doesn’t give sole authority for interpretation to the Supreme Court; that’s a power they’ve taken on for themselves. The other two branches of government should be equally interested and equally involved in applying the Constitution, and they should respond to this order with a unified “Make us.”
Michael elaborates in response to comments:
Courts aren’t the last recourse for justice, armed revolution is.
Okay… (backing away slowly toward the exit). That’s great, Michael. You go right on making your reasoned contribution to the public debate.