This is one of George Will's better columns in terms of clear points made followed by supporting evidence and explanation. His explanation of what the Supreme Court actually said and its implications is informative. He provides support for his position that includes excellent evidence from the conservative Cato Institute. He is not confrontational regarding McCain's position on the issue, but the suggestion is clear that McCain does not understand the court's ruling and that he has little knowledge of history.

In writing this article, George Will was no doubt conflicted between his Republican sympathies and his traditional conservative and libertarian principles. Will understands the deep importance of Habeas Corpus and knows that the constitution was not designed for the administration to be the sole judge of its own judgement. Will reminds that no state power is more fearsome than the power to imprison. Hence, the habeas right has been at the heart of the centuries-long struggle to constrain governments, a struggle in which the greatest event was the writing of America's Constitution. The article provides an understanding reflection of Chief Justice Roberts’ position in dissent. That seems oddly out of place since the position is ... More »

In an interesting opinion piece from George Will he scorns John McCains dumb comment regarding a narrow decision by the Supreme Court to uphold the right of Habeas Corpus Since most conservative writerers and opinionators have heretofore walked in lock step this was good to read. McCains comment was doublespeak and Will was right when he made a snide comment. McCain needs to do better before making a public statement.

I usually don't agree with Will, but he is a principled writer. He generally stands for original constitutional principles, particularly The Bill of Rights, so it's no surprise he is critical of McCain's condemnation of the Court's affirmation of habeas corpus rights for the Guantanamo prisoners. He seems fair in criticizing McCain's statement of Boumedienne as "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country" as political hyperbole when compared to Dred Scott, Plessy and Korematsu. He also harks back to Marbury in stressing the Court's historical role in limiting overreaching power grabs by the other federal branches, and illuminates for me the reasonableness of Chief Roberts' questioning of where the process goes ... More »

How so very interesting (?) that the Republicans always question the courts' decisions when the court decision goes against their capricious behavior. Though the R's claim to be the true blue americans, how is it that they forget that we continue to be a republic democracy because we are a nation of laws and not of capriciousness. Note: the Chief Justice voted against this---wow!--he really scares me. I suppose he's the "Will" of the people, by George.