Just one point I find amusing, and I am a lawyer for what that's worth (not a great deal, I often find): Morrissey complains about this being in the "wrong court" -- i.e., state court. GG effectively and correctly explains how, except for a few areas where federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction, the state courts are perfectly competent to adjudicate federal issues. Additionally, however, it's worth noting that when a plaintiff files a complaint in state court that raises a claim that could be adjudicated in federal court (as Kucinich clearly did), the defendant has the right to transfer the case to federal court, a process termed "removal." It is extremely simple: the defendant files a notice of removal in federal court and notification in state court, and it's done -- no court action is required, and until and unless the federal court sends it back, the state court is divested of all jurisdiction. If MSNBC wanted this in federal court, they could have put it there with about an hour's work.

By the way, I have no idea the merits of the Section 315 claim. The contract claim looks a little shaky to me, frankly...it's unclear what reciprocal obligation (i.e., "consideration") Kucinich undertook in exchange for MSNBC's invitation. Be that as it may, on a preliminary injunction the question never is who's ultimately right, because there isn't time here to hash all that out before the debate. The question is, does he have a reasonable likelihood of being right and who would be harmed more, MSNBC if he's forced in, or Kucinich if he's kept out? Clearly on the harm, the balance tips in favor of Kucinich (especially when you add the arguable public interest in having more, rather than fewer, voices in the debate).

During the Mukasey confirmation fight, you probably saw comments on various blogs from the occasional lawyer here in NY who had practiced before Mukasey and defended him as conservative, but fair and independent. I admit to having said this a few times. But boy, did I underestimate the ability of Bush to get people to completely destroy their own reputations and credibility for his sake. It's astonishing.

Anyway, crow isn't so bad with a little barbeque sauce.

One thing that should never be forgotten here is that our constitutions -- whether they be federal or state, the latter being involved in the CA decision -- weren't handed down by some monarch or didn't just spring full-formed from the head of Zeus. They are expressions of the will of the people -- indeed, they usually represent expressions of a significant supermajority of the people. So it is hardly undemocratic to suggest that the will of the current majority should bend to the principles expressed in the constitution.

The issue in these cases always has to do with who decides whether those principles have been transgressed. Take, for example, a relatively clear provision like the venue provision of the 6th Amendment: a person has to be tried in the "State and district in wherein the crime shall have been committed." If Congress passed a law allowing all federal trials to be transferred to, say, the 4th Circuit where the appeals court is highly pro-government, this would be as clear a violation as one could imagine. No one, I would hope, would say that it was "undemocratic" for a court to strike that down.

The issue only arises when its not clear, i.e., where a judgment has to be rendered. And if a judgment call has to be made, shouldn't it be by, you know, judges? At least, it's no less "democratic" to assign that role to judges than to simply allow the legislature to do whatever it wants, i.e., to render constitutions meaningless.

the tragic thing, when you think about it, is that it's now been over 6 years of detention, and all they have won at this point is the right to have a federal judge determine whether they are being legally detained. Now, don't get me wrong: that "all" is extremely important, and I don't mean to minimize it. But, to be honest, this should have been the easy part: deciding that the habeas corpus was still intact. It's determining the substance of the constitutional and other legal protections available to these detainees that should (and will be) the really hard part. That it's taken us this long to reaffirm such a basic principle as habeas is an astonishing testament to how low this administration has brought this nation.

What kind of illegal, immoral act do you have to commit to get Impeached??

Well, for starters, one that didn't get a vote of a majority of both houses of Congress. (And by that, I mean, not that it was not an immoral act, but rather that the practicalities are not going to allow for impeachment for signing a duly passed law, no matter how unconstitutional.)

Bin Laden knows a very simple fact that the lunatic, neocon right (including the 4 dissenters today) have never been able to grasp: it is not within Al-Qaeda (or any terrorist organization's) power to destroy our great nation; it is only within their power to goad us into doing it ourselves.

That is all that yesterday's Supreme Court ruling required -- not that detainees be released, but that their guilt be proven in a fair proceeding.

With all due respect, Glenn, it didn't even require that. All that it requires is a proceeding before a federal judge to test the legality of the detention; the Court specifically declined to say anything about what would make that detention legal. It's quite possible that "proof of guilt" (of something) will not be found to be a requirement.

I say this only to point out just how basic the ruling was yesterday. That it should be at all controversial, much less provoke the apocalyptic and paranoid ramblings that emanated from the dissent, is stunning. And sad.