But that’s neither here nor there is it? I’ve always understood the laws on warfare grew out of a desire not to repeat the horrors of the 30 Years War. When I’m gloomy I think we’re in the early stages of a similar conflict and 1 side hasn’t heard the news.

But I ain’t ridin on that sucker until that answer this question to my Apollo I era satisfaction…..

There was some dispute over whether or not passengers would be allowed to smoke in the oxygen-enriched trains.

As the Scalia citation makes clear, the Court has no power to rule in this matter, but dealt itself in on a technicality –that this particular case was pending before the law denying jurisdiction was made –never mind that the super-duper precedent in such cases is that the Court can’t rule from the time a law denying jurisdiction is enacted, and pending cases become moot.

And then they arrived at their conclusion on the ground that the Geneva conventions apply in a non-international conflict (civil war), which is what they say the war on terror is (since we’re not at war with another country, this is a civil war apparently).The complainant, Osama bin Laden’s driver, was picked up on a battlefield in Afghanistan, and the Court thinks he and others like him have the right not to be questioned without a lawyer present. Geniuses, these guys.

The court basically said to both the President and Congress: drop dead, we’re in charge here. In the end I don’t think the ruling is that important, in spite of the drive-by media’s breathless efforts to paint it as such. Bush would be well within his rights to ignore it –as Lincoln ignored Dred Scot, maintaining the Court ruling applied to Dred Scot solely, and had no general application. It might even do some good in that it is already stirring Congress to act against the Court, which might cause a few guys in the Legislature to read the Constitution and learn they don’t have to roll over for the Court in other areas, either.

Still, a breathtakingly tyrannical and stupid decision.