The Supreme Court can only render its interpretation of the law. They cannot execute the enforcement of the law. Broadly read, as Shapiro's article seems to do, one could argue that the other obvious violations of the Constitution will bring a similar rebuke, and if there were not four radicals on the Court, I would hope for that. This Court has been issuing a series of rulings that seem to be sort of an attempt to have it both ways. With ideologues like Alito and Scalia on the bench, it seems that the Court can't make up its mind about anything, which is in a way worse than having it lean too far to the left or right. It means we now have no settled law and anything is up for someone's "interpretation" of the moment depending on their agenda. It means we have a harder time arriving at the truth, and that's far worse for the country and for the rule of law in general. This is a disturbing trend.

Having said that, it's refreshing that the Court on this occasion gave an unambiguous rebuke to this corrupt administration for deciding that the law is irrelevant to the so-called "War on Terror" where the only standard that matters is, anything goes as long as we win. The Court seems to be saying, "Not so fast", and that's at least a sign that we aren't going over that cliff just yet.

Will no one rid Bush of these meddlesome priests?

Of course all freedom-loving people love the ruling by the Supreme Court yesterday that limits Bush's & the Republican’s ability to make up laws to suit their purposes, but I hesitate to join the bandwagon of headlines that talk about the administration being rebuffed, rebuked, defeated, rejected, etc., because, while those are plucky words, the reality is that the court’s decision was very close, about a very narrow, one-time-only subject, and the dissent so strong and so precise, that any feelings of victory can only be tempered. First, since Congress now needs to be involved, they will be – Republicans are already drafting a wording that would allow the president to have his way on these tribunals – and second, it can be assumed that Justices Alito, Thomas, Roberts, and Scalia will never allow this ruling to spill over into upending other Bush imperial diktats like warrantless wiretapping, the NSA telephone collecting, or the bank record tracking.

Permanent victories against a court that has already moved to the right in so many significant ways this term will only be possible if the Democrats win in 2008 – and, oh, yes, Stevens and Ginsburg can hold out until then.

The US Supreme Court has certainly delivere4d a stinging rebuke to the GW Bush in respect to one important aspect of the mal-administration of the US - but this is by no means enough: it is actually a mere slap on the wrist. GW Bush and Gang should be tried for war crimes, no less.

Put this third-rate scoundrel GW Bush alongside that monster Saddam Hussain - who looks worse? I see only the difference that it was impossible in the USA for GW Bush to do what Saddam Hussain did in Iraq - if he could've he surely would've: remember how he reacted, as Governor of Texas, to the plea for mercy from Karla Faye Tucker? Remember his reactions to the abuses at Abu Ghraib - which occurred only because he (or senior members of his mal-administration) willed them to happen?

When will the world wake up and put such monstrous 'leaders' out of business? Citizens nationwide and worldwide can surely gather the

power to do that.

US citizens: IMPEACH GW BUSH!

Given the propensity of this Administration to write signing statements giving itself the right to ignore Congressional acts that it finds disagreeable, will it feel that it has a similar right to ignore Sumpreme Court decisions where it thinks they got it wrong?

In short, as the Supreme have no way to actually enforce a decision, we need to trust G. W. Bush & Co. to actually allow an outside agency to limit their power. This flies in the face of the concept of the "unitary executive" held by this Administration, which essentially holds that the Executive branch is not bound by either Congress or the Courts. I'll believe it when I see it.

"with CONVENTIONal W is dum" ?

or by television 'sit-com'?

or by 'Duvalier' proclamation?

"SOMETHIN'S HAPPININ HERE..... and the man with the Gun over there" has us dumbyafounder with Justice and Freedom and Liberty for who?

jp

The Supreme Court decision also stated that it is Congress that has the authority, not the President, to decide how these men will be tried.

Karl Rove, I'm sure, has already devised legislation to be introduced around the end of September giving the President the authority to deal with detainees as he sees fit.

In congressional races across the country Democrats who voted against the legislation will be painted as pro terrorist and the gullible public will vote in a Republican majority once again.

And yet he keeps on flying, which he probably will continue doing untill the end of his second term. The question is why? After lying, spying, misleading the american people and the world, why do you let him go on?

This is a great decision, but as others here have touched on, there still is great trouble. And this decision might have no effect on what's happening now and the near future. Our Congress is debating meaningless "support the troops/president" resolutions and anti-flag burning amendments. The Court not only has four justices who seem fine with the suspension of habeas and unlimited executive power, one of them (Thomas) went out of his way for the first time in his 15 years on the bench to read in dissent to yesterday's decision. This is what he cares about. Our President and executive openingly deride a free press, while leading us in endless war that is at best incompetance, at worse crimes against humanities.

Its great the Court gave this decision, but what does it matter? I have no faith Bush will actually give these people an actual, public, fair trial. No faith he will shut down Gitmo and all the horrific practices done in our name. And no one will hold them accountable. Not Congress, not the democrats, not the media, not the voters, not even the Court.

Woo-hoo, way to go Supreme Court. Yay.