The National Review has been going predictably apeshit over the upholding of habeas corpus since the Supreme Court narrowly affirmed that the Constitution isn’t made of Charmin, but this bit by Andrew McCarthy makes me giggle:
It is difficult to single out the most outrageous aspect of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in the Supreme Court’s cataclysmic Boumediene ruling last Thursday: The reckless vesting of constitutional rights in aliens whose only connection with our body politic is their bloody jihad against Americans; the roughshod ride over binding precedent to accomplish that feat; or the smug arrogance perfectly captured by dissenting Chief Justice John Roberts’s description of a “constitutional bait and switch” — a Court that first beseeches the political branches to enact a statutory procedure for handling combatant detentions, and then, once a thoughtful law is compliantly passed, invalidates the effort for its failure to satisfy the eccentric predilections of five lawyers.
How dare the Supreme Court ask us to do something and then say it’s not good enough?
I do appreciate the idea that the Constitutional considerations embodied in the court’s first request for a better law somehow fly out the window because Congress responds to the request. The MC Pee Pants Torture and Detainment Act of 2008 isn’t safe? NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
------
Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.
As in “separate but equal” followed by “Brown vs. Board of Education”?