"The majority is wrong," Breyer said.
And about the court in general:
"It's not often in law that so few have changed so much so quickly."
I find that to be quite a remarkable statement coming from a supreme court judge.
So, the fact that the court has suddenly decided to take up the case of the Gitmo detainees' rights doesn't bode well for them, as far as I'm concerned:
High Court to Hear Terror Detainee Case
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 29, 2007; 11:42 AM
The Supreme Court said today that it would review the rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees to challenge their confinements in federal court, reversing a decision in April not to take up that issue.
The justices did not say what had changed their minds. The Bush administration had praised the court's earlier decision not to review the matter.
In my mind, that means the court will most likely rule against the detainees.
At the time, only three of four justices necessary to grant review--David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer--were willing to take the two cases involved, saying "these questions deserve this court's immediate attention.'' Two other justices, John Paul Stevens and Anthony M. Kennedy, issued a statement saying they might want to hear the issue in the future.
Mainly the "liberals". So why do the conservatives now want to hear the case?
Today's order, by tradition, does not indicate which justices decided to hear the cases, but the decision to reopen the matter is unusual.
I'm not as excited as this guy, obviously:
"This is a stunning victory for the detainees," Eric M. Freedman, a professor of constitutional law at Hofstra Law School who has been advising some of the captives, told the Associated Press. "It goes well beyond what we asked for, and clearly indicates the unease up there" at the Supreme Court.