Peter Wehner of National review Online recently summed up some of the big problems posed by the Supreme Court's Boumediene v. Bush decision (emphasis mine):
The Supreme Court’s decision in Boumediene v. Bush was deeply problematic in part because it was a power grab by the Court. It manufactured a Constitutional right for foreign terrorism suspects held outside the United States. Indeed, we are bestowing on unlawful enemy combatants rights that have never before been extended to prisoners of war, who are (unlike terrorists) abiding by international norms. To extend habeas rights to unlawful enemy combatants, the Court broke precedent with the Eisentrager decision — and then attempted to fundamentally reinterpret Eisentrager in order to save itself the task of explaining why it was overruling it. The Court, in other words, wrongly and imperiously carved out responsibility for itself in an area it has never before had jurisdiction — and in the process it invalidated laws (the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act and the 2006 Military Commissions Act) the Court had recently insisted Congress legislate. The Court has, in the words of Chief Justice John Roberts, made Congress “the victim of a constitutional bait and switch.”
For years Americans have heard from a few liberals/Democrats that certain SCOTUS decisions had become “settled law” & that it was time to move on. Yet the Boumediene ruling should be a reminder that few laws remain settled whenever the SCOTUS telepathically discern penumbras emanating from the Constitution. Boumediene is a reminder not only of the importance of voting for a president this November who will appoint judges who understand their proper role in our system of government, but also that constitutionally questionable
power grabs rulings of the past such as Roe v. Wade, Kelo v. City of New London, & McConnell v. FEC will be re-examined by a future SCOTUS with an eye towards overturning said rulings. A restoration of America's checks & balances can't come soon enough.