Not Hopeful

OpinionJournal has today’s lead editorial from the WSJ. It is worth reading in its entirety. Here is the beginning:

As the Supreme Court weighs the rights of the captured al Qaeda fighters whose cases will be heard today, we hope it won’t forget the rights of the rest of us. Namely, Americans have the right to be protected against enemy attack.

This appears to be a more open question than it should be with the current High Court, whose sense of its own importance is such that it just might think it can do a better job of running the war on terror than an elected chief executive. For more than 200 years, the Supreme Court has deferred to the executive branch on matters of national security, especially during wartime, including decisions about how to define and handle the enemy. The test for this Court is whether it will show similar restraint.

I am not hopeful that the Court will restrain itself. It has shown every inclination to serve as final arbiter using the New York Pravda as its rule book.

We need to cut their budget.

About the author

Erick Erickson

View all posts

1 Comment

  • Where does the line between constitutional rights and national security get drawn? Do you really think it’s ok for the executive branch (whose power is legally vested in one person) to put an American citizen in captivity for as long as they feel like without even charging them with anything? You and the WSJ might say that judicial interference is a separation of powers issue, but isn’t the executive branch doing whatever the hell it wants without a check a violation of the very structure of government? I ask again, where is the line? Would it be OK if President Bush said you were an unlawful enemy combatant? Does he have the right to do that? What if Congress tried to impeach him, and he said they were enemy combatants? What then?