Supreme Court whiplashes Executive Branch on tribunals and Geneva Conventions

Today, the Supreme Court applied a major check on the rising Executive Branch power.  The court, which ironically is the most conservative it has been in 20 years, ruled that the Bush Administration cannot hold military tribunals for detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba because it gives them few judicial protections:

In a 5-3 decision, the court said the trials were not authorized by anyact of Congress and that their structure and procedures violate theUniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the four Geneva Conventionssigned in 1949.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion in the case, called Hamdan v. Rumsfeld . Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. recused himself.

Bush, who was meeting with the Japanese Prime Minister, commented on it:

Bush said he would consult with Congress to seek "a way forward"after the ruling, which reversed the appeals court ruling on statutorygrounds, avoiding major constitutional issues.

...Bush added, "I want tofind a way forward. In other words, I have told the people that I wouldlike for there to be a way to return people from Guantanamo to theirhome countries. But some people need to be tried in our courts, and theHamdan decision was the way forward for that part of my statement."

Bush is going to consult Congress for a way forward?  Wow!  That's pretty rare for this President.  Overall, this ruling did do a few things.  First, it affirmed the position that the Administration needs to follow the Geneva Conventions -- even though some have argued that the Geneva Conventons do not apply during this war (even though they were obviously written specifically for wars like this!).

Secondly, it affirms the longstanding American belief that we are a nation of laws, not just merely a nation of men.

I thought that the funniest part about the ruling was the fact that it overturned a ruling that John Roberts had issued in a lower court, which sided with the government on this case.  Therefore, once Roberts reached the Supreme Court, he had to be recused from hearing this case a second time.  Although, even if he had voted with the government a second time, his side still would have lost by one vote.
------------------------------------------------------------
Other blogs writing about this issue: Alternate Brain, Blackhacker, The Doc is in, Dan's Blog, Ktemic Konsiders, End of the World, Spider Web, The Xsociate Files, The Bush Whacked League, Adventures in Perpetuity, Arcadia Est Imperare Orbi Universo, Field and Song, The Broad View, Laura Elizabeth, Slant Blog.