[lepton]

My friend, you are not a conservative, you are advocating that the President break the law of the land in a manner that would require his impeachment.

Frankly, that's a politics game. If we were discussing it honestly, there would be 5 justices with articles of impeachment against them right now...not because we disagree with their opinions, but because the Constitution, the Law, and the Geneva Conventions are so clear on this that they are either illiterate (a distinct possibility), or simply dispensed with the Constitution. There really aren't any other alternatives.

The Congress in the DTA clearly and directly removed this case from their jurisdiction as of 30 Dec 2005. Article III of the Constitution directly and explicitly gives Congress that power. The Geneva Conventions explicitly exclude the detainees from coverage as illegal combatants, and the DTA provides a path for challenging their illegal combatant status(which challenge had nothing to do with this case and which did not involve SCOTUS).

The SCOTUS has invoked a Constitutional crisis and dared the other branches to deal with it. This is about as direct as it comes.

[drjimmy]

The Congress in the DTA clearly and directly removed this case from their jurisdiction as of 30 Dec 2005.

No. The DTA did not apply retroactively to cases currently pending, so the Supreme Court still had jurisdiction to decide Hamdan

[Edgerunner]

That's what I thought! When I mentioned these facts (not as lucidly as you have) I was rebuked with the accusation that I must know more than the SCOTUS. In this case, my liberal friend was right!