I'm coming late to this thread, and don't have time to read all 700+ posts so let me ask these three questions:
1. Isn't the Geneva Convention a Treaty?
2. Isn't ONLY the Senate constitutionally empowered to agree to treaties?
3. Why does the SC think they have consitutional authority to usurp the function of the Senate?
IOW, the SC's ruling is unconstitutional, No? The SC is not the most powerful of the three branches. The SC is acting if they are MORE powerful than the Executive and the Legislative--not co-equal.
Wasn't it Andrew Jackson that was ordered by the SC to do a certain thing, and his response was "I have Justice So-and-So's ruling, now let's see him make me do it."
Would to God that George Bush had that kind of spine.
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority" (Art. III, Section 2, Clause 1) and
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." (Art. VI, Clause 2)
The decision may be wrong, but the Supremes certainly had jurisdiction to decide whether the Geneva Convention was violated.