Why the Court Said No
"The fact that the Court decided the case at all in the face of Congress's efforts to strip the Court of jurisdiction is remarkable in itself. That the Court then broke away from its history of judicial deference to security claims in wartime to rule against the President, not even pausing at the argument that the decisions of the commander in chief are 'binding on the courts,' suggests just how troubled the Court's majority was by the President's assertion of unilateral executive power. That the Court relied so centrally on international law in its reasoning, however, is what makes the decision truly momentous," writes David Cole.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/072406O.shtml
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/072406O.shtml
rudkla - 24. Jul, 21:55
