Quote

The military tribunals currently underway at Guantanamo Bay create a clear legal process, as affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, for adjudicating the cases of these terrorists, when possible. Those efforts would be severely undercut by moving the detainees to the United States.

I have always thought that term limits for Justices sound good until you really give the issue some thought.

A decision by the Supreme Court to subject Guantanamo to judicial review would eliminate these advantages.

Judges need to restrict themselves to the proper resolution of the case before them. They need to avoid the temptation to set broad policy.

I think there needs to be a range of justices, of all types. You can't just pick one type.

If the Court were to extend its reach to the base, judges could begin managing conditions of confinement, interrogation methods, and the use of information.

Our country is wounded and bleeding now if we don't know whether or not habeas corpus exists.

Cagey trial lawyers have figured out there's a pretty good likelihood their case - no matter what its merit - will literally get its day in court because of favorable judges.

They're all focusing on how John Roberts is going to decide Roe v. Wade. That isn't even the right question. I don't even know of a case in the (court) system that addresses it.

We may have lured judges into roaming at large in the constitutional field.