There are many reasons the upcoming presidential election is profoundly important, and one of them is the probable nominations of 2 new Supreme Court Justices.

John Paul Stevens is 88 years old, so that's a fairly obvious vacancy that will need to be filled.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 75.

Antonin Scalia is 72.

Anthony Kennedy is 71.

Stephen Breyer is 69.

David Souter is 68.

Clarence Thomas is 59.

Samuel Alito is 58.

Chief Justice John Roberts is 53.

Today, by a vote of 5-4 the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, granting them the right to challenge their accusers in civilian federal courts.

As much as I admire John Roberts, I can't say I care to much for him to be writing the dissent opinion on behalf of Scalia, Thomas and Alito.

Said Roberts...detainees had been given "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants."

I tend to agree with Kennedy on this..."The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times,"

I like balance on The Court, and a 5-4 vote indicates just that, but just imagine if Stevens hadn't stuck around this long.

Congratulations to the US Constitution, a damned fine piece of paper.

Hear, hear

"They are the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants"

Generosity is the basis for a decision, rather than interpretation of law?

This is generosity?

What other enemy combatants?

Then we have Scalia:

"It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

If he's so concerned, let him quit the Supreme Court and become a politician and enact laws more to his liking. But really, only a man could say something so stupid.

Can't wait to hear him and Obama talk about the constitution. I am willing to bet Roberts is not going to be able to bamboozle him when it gets time to talk about the law.

A big reason to vote for Barack Obama.

Schmutzie:

was still there, it would have been 6-3. Most of them were appointed by Repubs. Oh by the way, I am 42.

The Supremes are a funny bunch. As you correctly point out, they don't always follow the ideological path one would expect if expectations are based on the ideology of the president who nominated them. (Ginsburg & Breyer being the only ones nominated by a Democrat)

O'ConnOr- Reagan

Stevens-Ford

Kennedy- Reagan

It is noteworthy though that Thomas, Alito, and Roberts are the three youngest, and they sure seem to consistently lean the same way. Maybe Scalia has more charm than I give him credit for.

Schmutzie:

The Supremes are a funny bunch. As you correctly point out, they don't always follow the ideological path one would expect if expectations are based on the ideology of the president who nominated them. (Ginsburg & Breyer being the only ones nominated by a Democrat)

that benchmark was the result of maybe the most surprising example of that "funny bunch" dynamic. If I remember my "The Brethren" right, Justice Blackmun was known at first as the "Minnesota Twin" because of his perceived lockstep obeisance to Warren Burger.

They are all Philosopher-Kings, in a way, and prophets upon whom enlightenment descends. Look at Earl Warren---no one would have called him an historic liberal/progressive hero, until he became one.

Ink~

Roe is a great example of the way the funny bunch can operate, but doesn't it seem like lately the nominees are much more lockstep with the president who nominates them?

Almost like GW said..."Howdy. Thanks for stopping by. I'm considering you for a Supreme Court spot. How do you feel about Roe and Gitmo?"

Seems like the dissent opinion on this Gitmo thing was written by four Philosopher Kings who forgot to be philosophical.

Can they possibly be serious, or did they already know which way Kennedy was going to vote and went the other way for appearances sake?

They do know this is all going on their permanent record, right?

Quick.....Who's on the Senate Judiciary Committee?

(Not you Ink, you already know...)

Yep. Roe vs. Wade ain't the only question of importance out there.

I haven't read the opinion yet so don't know the "full context" (as McCain would say) of Roberts' statement about how generous we are with "aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants" but, like Camille, I can't think of any other examples. The Japanese in WWII, even the non-citizens, weren't treated as badly but of course they weren't "enemy combatants" either. I really have no idea where Roberts is coming from except for pique in being overruled (when on the Court of Appeals) by the Supreme Court in Hamdan.

In any event, we don't need some more of those.

No sense of irony in this administration.

"It was a deeply divided court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented," Bush said.

Did he not like these 5-4 decisions either? <link>

<link>

I'm sure there are plenty of others.

real Americans on the court. Then the country will be safe for a few years.

Jack