Roe vs Wade Gives Way To Boumediene vs Bush

Justice Scalia, flanked by Justice Thomas, Chief Justice Roberts, and Justice Alito in the background, after issuing their minority decision.

Good article on the case concerning Habeas Corpus. Scalia was on the dissenting side, and used his brilliance to portray himself as either a rich white guy who is very frightened of the changes in the world and would do anything to make them all just go away, including delivering his soul to Caesar and letting the Republic go down the tubes, or as a charlatan. http://www.common-place.org/vol-08/no-04/talk/ H. Robert Baker The Supreme Court Confronts History Or, habeas corpus redivivus History matters. Perhaps more to the point, how we craft history matters, whether we are historians or not. The Supreme Court proved this on June 12 when it issued its decision in Boumediene v. Bush. The case concerns habeas corpus, latin for "have the body" (as in a command by a judge to a jailor to "have the body in my courtroom and explain why you are restraining him or her"). In Boumediene, the question at issue was whether the government could strip federal courts of jurisdiction to entertain prisoners’ applications for habeas corpus. The Court broke five to four against the government, ruling that Congress had exceeded its authority... Unfortunately, the originalist justice Scalia acts as a pander for Empire vs Republic in his dissent, but did we ever think he was anything else but a self-aggrandizing chapman-narcissist? Brilliant, yes, but flawed. In the near future, we shall use Boumediene vs Bush as a touchstone of political correctness: are ye a son of the Republic or a bastard of the Empire?