This will be considered a lamentable aberration in the near future ...
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court dealt a setback to the Bush administration's war against terrorism Monday, ruling that both U.S. citizens and foreign nationals seized as potential terrorists can challenge their treatment in U.S. courts.
The court refused to endorse a central claim of the White House since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 2001: That the government has authority to seize and detain suspected terrorists or their protectors and indefinitely deny access to courts or lawyers while interrogating them.
O'Connor was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen Breyer in her view that Congress had authorized detentions such as Hamdi's in what she called very limited circumstances...Two other justices, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, would have gone further and declared Hamdi's detention improper. Still, they joined O'Connor and the others to say that Hamdi, and by extension others who may be in his position, are entitled to their day in court."
1. who dissented?
2. how many court seats are going to change hands in the next administration?
3. how will the court be aligned for the next 30 years if Bush gets another term?
and 4. How's that working for ya?