The most recent ruling regarding an enemy flies in the face of the Constitution and the law passed by Congress. First, Article III, Section 2 ... In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. (Appears in second paragraph after delineating the case jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.) Whether the court likes it or not, the Constitution gives Congress the power and authority to limit the type and scope of cases that the court may hear. Note that it says to law and fact which precludes the notion that the Court can do as it wishes when the justices don’t like the laws or the facts. Anything contrary to the provisions of the Constitution and the limits imposed by Congress is a usurpation of power and must be dealt with to prevent damage to the nation.

David Limbaugh addressed the ruling in an article, World Net Daily July 3, 2006. (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50908) Their ruling summarily ignored a law passed by Congress concerning trials, and which was made pursuant to Article III, Section 2 cited above. The law says: "No court, justice or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba." In other words, the court decided that Congress couldn’t limit them and that their standing is greater than that of the legislative body whose duty is to follow the Constitution. Another way to look at it is that people and Congress through the Constitutional are the bosses of the Supreme Court except for those areas of case jurisdiction expressly granted by the Constitution. Such declared duty is still bound by law and fact, the Constitution, and its provisions. Failure to follow the Constitution and Congress creates an excellent case for impeachment of the five justices who so ruled. 

Justice Scalia said that it was wrong to use foreign law to decide cases, but the court shouldn’t be told how to do its business. He is wrong about the latter part of the statement. Justices O’Conner (now thankfully retired), Ginsberg and the other liberals have taken umbrage that anyone would question their Imperial decisions. The case of the detainee is a glaring example of why the people and Congress must tell the court when enough is enough and in retrospect, enough has been too much when their past rulings are examined. 

When any government employee deliberately refuses to follow the law of the land and nothing is done to prevent more violations, the nation faces more than the peril that comes from outside. The peril from the inside is like a tumor that grows and eventually devours the host. The liberal members of the court are the tumors that are devouring us. In Sorting It Out, the tumors in the court need to be excised, and in this case, the remedy is impeachment and removal from their positions.