The Supreme Court's ruling in Hamdan may represent a Pyrrhic victory for the Democrats - since Bush is now likely to go to Congress for enabling legislation, Dems may be forced into a series of potentially awkward votes just a few months before the election.
Here is the AP:
Congressional hearings on Guantanamo set
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court's rebuff of the Bush administration's Guantanamo military tribunals knocks the issue into the halls of Congress, where GOP leaders are already trying to figure out how to give the president the options he wants for dealing with suspected terror detainees.
That way forward could be long and difficult. Congress will negotiate a highly technical legal road - one fraught with political implications in an election year - under the scrutiny of the international community that has condemned the continued use of the Guantanamo prison.
...Within hours of the high court's ruling that the military tribunals were illegal under U.S. and international law, President Bush said he would work with Congress to fix the problem. Still, Bush vowed that the result "won't cause killers to be put out on the street."
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said he would introduce legislation after the July 4 recess that would authorize military commissions and appropriate due process procedures. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., introduced a bill Thursday that did essentially that.
"To keep America safe in the war on terror, I believe we should try terrorists only before military commissions, not in our civilian courts," Frist said.
Sen. John McCain said Friday that, with the Supreme Court ruling guiding the way, "we can now get this system unstuck."
"I'm confident that we can come up with a framework that guarantees we comply with the court's order but at the same time none of the bad people are set free," McCain, R-Ariz., told NBC's "Today" show.
We will know by November whether this ruling was yet another manifestation of a Rovian plot.
MORE: I saw some promo for a t-shirt saying "F SCOTUS". Uhh, "F THAT". We are still the party of the rule of law; we are just having a little trouble figuring out what the law is.
And I am looking forward to lots of commentary about the Supreme Court's new ability to enter into treaties with terrorist groups - extending the Geneva Convention to Al Qaeda seems daft.
Well, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid can help sort through this, and good luck to them.
PARTISAN WATCH: Brad DeLong calls me out for cynical Republican partisanship:
Hamdan is not a "Pyrrhic victory" for Democrats. Hamdan is a full-fledged victory for freedom, America, and constitutional government. "Hamdan" says that the United States is not an elective dictatorship, but rather a republic in which there is a legislative branch which legislates and an executive branch that executes the laws--executes the laws, doesn't do what it likes while ignoring Congress.
Well, I am sympathetic to his broad point that not everything should be loooked at through the prism of its political impact. However, handicapping the horse race is part of the pundit's job description, a sis trying to look down the road a bit and say something other than "yea" or "boo".
As to the substance - is this decision a great day for democracy? Well, I suppose so, especially since Bush did not put troops in the capitol or arrest the Supremes.
But I have never thought Bush was on a path to an imperial Presidency; I have believed that Congress was ducking its responsibility to involve itself in these national security issue becasue they are not an accountability-seeking institution. It is far more comfortable for Congress to duck issues and second-guess Bush's mistakes than actually be on the hook for a decision. But they have not lacked the institutional power to oppose the President; what they have lacked is the will.
And now the Supreme Court has forced them to do their job. Fine.
The Anon Lib has thoughts on the approach taken by the Supremes.