Boumediene v. Bush

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday, in a divided 5-4 decision, that prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay have the right to appeal their status in the US Court system. This seems like common sense to me. After all, it was embarrassing how the United States of a America, a country that champions civil liberties and natural rights and freedoms, was just detaining people without cause and without trial. I thank the Court, however split, for this display of basic principle. Justice Kennedy summed it perfectly when he wrote:

''The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law."

Isn't that basic constitutional law right there? In striking contrast, Justice Scalia responded:

"[The nation is] at war with radical Islamists [and that the court's decision] will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.''

That completely blows my mind. Here we have a Justice of the United States Supreme Court--one of the highest authorities of law in the country--essentially saying that the foundations of the Constitution are supposed to change depending on the circumstances. Isn't that contrary to the point of it all? How can someone in his position forget the fundamentals of the document he has sworn to protect? In the minority or not, it's a frightening thought.

Today, John McCain opened his mouth on the decision and uttered the following:

"I think it's one of the worst decisions in history. It opens up a whole new chapter and interpretation of our constitution."

Let's break this statement apart, clause by clause. First: this decision is apparently worse than Dred Scott (black slaves don't have rights), Plessy ("separate but equal" is constitutional), and Lochner (stopped government regulation of business for about three decades by virtue of contract law and substantive due process). To me and probably to a number of constitutional historians, those three opinions are by far the worst handed down by the Court in its history. Apparently, Boumediene is up there, too. And this brings me to the second clause. This decision is not degrading a group of Americans, legalizing segregation, or injecting a popular economic theory into law. Rather, it is just affording people the rights that we, as the United States, guarantee them. Yet this is somehow a "new chapter" and "new interpretation." Give me a break.

In short, shame on you, McCain. Shame on you for trying to look so partisan and conservative that you made a completely ridiculous and all-out historically incorrect statement. I'd like someone to call you out on it, but unfortunately, no one will. But now I do know that I definitely won't be voting for you come November.