I don't know, but we could think of it this way: The President has blinders on to prosecute the WOT by any means necessary, which is not completely a bad thing as it means he's working hard on it. Then we have the courts looking out for us to make sure our rights don't become collateral damage. Then there's Congress on the fence, charged both with looking out for us and giving the President the necessary tools to fight this "war." Sort of balanced, I guess, but we shouldn't complain when the balances kick in.
BTW, I wrote "war" because I'm tired of the "War on XXX" moniker, especially since all previous ones have failed.
It's not balanced the way you described though. Courts are supposed to be reluctant to make law, and lack the power to declare war and describe the parameters of war. I just skimmed the Quirin case, and man, what a contrast with the legal framework in place today. I think Congress needs to take a stand, one way or the other.
Lindsey Graham's amendments to reign-in SCOTUS's holding that Gitmo detainees are entitled to the writ of habeas corpus come to mind. That was a "balance kicking in."
I wrote "war" because I'm tired of the "War on XXX" moniker, especially since all previous ones have failed.
Oh, I dunno, it depends on your role in the scheme of things. The wars on poverty and drugs have opened up lots of nifty jobs ;-)