tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post108879289684710483..comments2024-01-03T05:23:36.046-08:00Comments on The Citizens: More on the Supreme CourtUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-1089172225475122702004-07-06T20:50:00.000-07:002004-07-06T20:50:00.000-07:00Let me just add . . . in fairness . . .the Court i...Let me just add . . . in fairness . . .the Court is in a difficult position here because they don't want to set up a situation where the President's powers are too limited in a time of war, but they don't want him running rough shod over the Consitution, either. The lack of a clear majority is worrisome, but not abnormal for this Court.<br /><br /> The nature of this "war" is also unlike so many others. The bigger issue is to define what war really is in this day and age, something that isn't really in the pervue of the US Supreme Court. The Founding Father's, I am quite sure, never thought about war beyond the conventional. But I am pretty sure that they wouldn't agree with "enemy combatants". Where did that originate as a legal designation anyway? Can some one tell me?USWesthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06058471452288827920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-1089171924605031172004-07-06T20:45:00.000-07:002004-07-06T20:45:00.000-07:00Thank you for the explanation. I haven't had time ...Thank you for the explanation. I haven't had time to listen to the oral arguments, so I appreciate the run down.<br /><br />Clarence Thomas is a disappointment in oh so many ways. The really amazing thing is that he broke from Scalia on this one. Mark the date on your calendar because it doesn't happen often.<br /><br />I agree with your final assessment, however, that once again (asin Bush v. Gore), the Court did not rise to the occasion as one would hope demonstrating a lack of judical courage.USWesthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06058471452288827920noreply@blogger.com