[jude24]

Five of them stand in violation of their oaths of office, in this decision.

Oh, please. Just because they interpret things differently doesn't mean that they are in dereliction of duty. There is a lot of room for legitimate disagreement here.

[Congressman Billybob]

No, there is NOT room for disagreement here. In Hamdan five Justices refused to follow the unanimous decision in . That is not a matter of opinion, it is fact. Also, the majority avoided ALL of its prior cases, including McCardle, which consistently held that a withdrawal of jurisdiction is effective immediately in all pending cases. That is also a fact.

Apparently, you have not read McCardle. In that case, Congress withdrew the right of habeas corpus, late in the Civil War, and as provided in the Constitution. As a result, the Court dismissed that case, which was then pending before it.

Do you dispute the facts I've put on the table? If not, I gather you withdraw your comment that this is a legitimate disagreement.

John / Billybob

[Congressman Billybob]

Posting my post ate the main case citation. The unanimous decision was Quirin, 1942. You need to reread that until you understand that.

John / Billybob

[Robert A Cook PE]

Five (sworn liberal socialists) justices mangled the LAW - as it is written, as it it applies to a terrorist who is NOT a signature to the Geneva Convention, and which we did NOT ratify.

You CANNOT escape or make excuses for lies and false judgments: There is NO argument, only socialist "judges" who write their own law.

Paraphrasing, as Einstein once said, when his theories were attacked by Hitler's Nazi (liberal socialist) scholars, "500 making false statements means nothing. If they could, it would only take one to prove me wrong."