Terrorists and Illegal Aliens Have Constitutional Rights

[RobsPics]

And that's where they **** up.

No that's where Bush & Co fucked up.

If they had not brought terrorist to Gitmo, Constitutional rights would not have been an issue in the first place.

[AZGrizFan]

And that's where they **** up.

No that's where Bush & Co fucked up.

If they had not brought terrorist to Gitmo, Constitutional rights would not have been an issue in the first place.

Riddle me this, Batman: If the SC can apply (or NOT apply) constitutional rights whenever politically expedient (as you've so eloquently proven), why apply THIS constitutional right NOW?

[RobsPics]

No that's where Bush & Co **** up.

If they had not brought terrorist to Gitmo, Constitutional rights would not have been an issue in the first place.

Riddle me this, Batman: If the SC can apply (or NOT apply) constitutional rights whenever politically expedient (as you've so eloquently proven), why apply THIS constitutional right NOW?

1.
Once seated, no member of the SCOTUS is under any pressure to act politically...lifetime tenure no matter what they rule. The rational behind that is it removes their decision from popular/mob rule.

2.
"why apply THIS constitutional right NOW?"...the SCOTUS is applying it NOW because the Terrorist were caught just a few years ago, and they were brought to Gitmo just a few years ago...how else would the SCOTUS have rules on this issue? 50 years ago?

[AZGrizFan]

2.
"why apply THIS constitutional right NOW?"...the SCOTUS is applying it NOW because the Terrorist were caught just a few years ago, and they were brought to Gitmo just a few years ago...how else would the SCOTUS have rules on this issue? 50 years ago?

You misunderstand: If they have the power to chose when/where to apply particular rights granted in the constitution, why chose this particular time to grant this particular right? Why not say "NO"?

[RobsPics]

2.
"why apply THIS constitutional right NOW?"...the SCOTUS is applying it NOW because the Terrorist were caught just a few years ago, and they were brought to Gitmo just a few years ago...how else would the SCOTUS have rules on this issue? 50 years ago?

You misunderstand: If they have the power to chose when/where to apply particular rights granted in the constitution, why chose this particular time to grant this particular right? Why not say "NO"?

"...why chose this particular time to grant this particular right?"

Answer:
because it is timely, just like I mentioned above.

"...Why not say "NO"?"

Answer:
Because, as the SCOTUS already explained, the Constitution required a "yes" answer. The SCOTUS doesn't make it's rulings based on their emotions or public opinion. They are required to base their rulings on the Constitution.