every second of the next 4.5 months will be Barack Obama trying to convince old white Democratic-leaning voters in western Pennsylvania that he doesn't want to blow up their houses in the name of Allah and/or O.J. Simpson.

Pendular swings to and away from individual liberty were endemic to undivided, uncontrolled power. The Framers' inherent distrust of governmental power was the driving force behind the constitutional plan that allocated powers among three independent branches. This design serves not only to make Government accountable but also to secure individual liberty. (Page 12)

"[T]he practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been,
in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 84

The Constitution grants Congress and the President the power to acquire, dispose of, and govern territory, not the power to decide when and where its terms apply. To hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not
this Court, say "what the law is." (Page 35)

Security depends upon a sophisticated intelligence apparatus and the ability of our
Armed Forces to act and to interdict. There are further considerations, however. Security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom's first principles. Chief among these are freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to the separation of powers. It is from these principles that the judicial authority to consider petitions for habeas corpus relief
derives. (Page 68)

If, as some fear, terrorism continues to pose dangerous threats to us for years to come, the Court might not have this luxury. This result is not inevitable, however. The political branches,
consistent with their independent obligations to interpret and uphold the Constitution, can engage in a genuine debate about how best to preserve constitutional values while protecting the Nation from terrorism. (Page 69)

The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary
times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law. The Framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, a part of that law. (Page 70)

The game of bait-and-switch that today's opinion plays upon the Nation's Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed. That consequence would be tolerable if necessary to preserve a time-honored legal principle vital
to our constitutional Republic. But it is this Court's blatant abandonment of such a principle that produces the decision today. (Page 2)

What competence does the Court have to second-guess the judgment of Congress and the President on such a point? None whatever. But the Court blunders in nonetheless. Henceforth, as today's opinion makes unnervingly clear, how to handle enemy prisoners in this war will ultimately lie with the branch that knows least about the national security concerns that the subject entails. (Page 6)

The Court's analysis produces a crazy result: Whereas those convicted and sentenced to death for war crimes are without judicial remedy, all enemy combatants detained during a war, at least insofar as they are confined in an area away from the battlefield over which the United States exercises "absolute and indefinite" control, may seek a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. And, as an even more bizarre implication from the Court's reasoning, those prisoners whom the military plans to try by fulldress Commission at a future date may file habeas petitions and secure release before their trials take place. (Page 16)

It is a sad day for the rule of law when such an important constitutional precedent is discarded without an apologia, much less an apology. (Page 17)

In sum, all available historical evidence points to the conclusion that the writ would not have been available at common law for aliens captured and held outside the sovereign territory of the Crown. Despite three opening briefs, three reply briefs, and support from a legion of amici, petitioners have failed to identify a single case in the history of Anglo-American law that supports their
claim to jurisdiction. (Page 22)

What history teaches is confirmed by the nature of the limitations that the Constitution places upon suspension of the common-law writ. It can be suspended only "in
Cases of Rebellion or Invasion." The latter case (invasion) is plainly limited to the territory of the
United States; and while it is conceivable that a rebellion could be mounted by American citizens abroad, surely the overwhelming majority of its occurrences would be domestic. If the extraterritorial scope of habeas turned on flexible, "functional" considerations, as the Court holds, why would the Constitution limit its suspension almost entirely to instances of domestic crisis? Surely there is an even greater justification for suspension in foreign lands where the United States might hold prisoners of war during an ongoing conflict. And correspondingly, there is less threat to liberty when the Government suspends the writ's (supposed) application in foreign lands, where even on the most extreme view prisoners are entitled to fewer constitutional rights. It makes no sense, therefore, for the
Constitution generally to forbid suspension of the writ abroad if indeed the writ has application there. (Page 23)

Today the Court warps our Constitution in a way that goes beyond the narrow issue of the reach of the Suspension Clause, invoking judicially brainstormed separation-of-powers principles to establish a manipulable "functional" test for the extraterritorial reach of habeas corpus (and, no doubt, for the extraterritorial reach of other constitutional protections as well). It blatantly misdescribes important precedents, most conspicuously Justice Jackson's opinion for the Court in Johnson v. Eisentrager. It breaks a chain of precedent as old as the common law that prohibits judicial inquiry into detentions of aliens abroad absent statutory authorization. And, most tragically, it sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards this Court devises in the future, that evidence supports the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner. The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done
today. I dissent. (Page 25)

He thought a little thing like winning would stop her?

Oh, Bambi.

Whoever said that after denial comes acceptance hadn't met the Clintons.

Is she conceding this? I hope not.

Hillary, You are the winner in all respects.

Why should HRC, who surely is a better candidate, needs to carry that unqualified man. NO second place for HRC.

WE are NOT at the end of any road yet, just the end of the primary voting.

That's why I'm voting for Hillary in November, be it as the Democratic Nominee (becuase she won the popular vote and that's what matters), as a third-party candidate, or as a last resort writing her in.

I pray she stays in the race as the party's nominee. I too refuse to vote for Obama in November. I'll write in Hillary or I hope she runs as an Independent -- what does she have to lose? If nothing else, my third party vote will cancel out someone else's vote. I'm sickened by the fact that the superdelegates aren't even listening to the people! Why even bother to vote when they put in whomever they want!

(I) HE played dirty politics on Clinton... She led the popular vote, by dirty tricks, he won the caucus states. Now, today, they did a coup against the only woman in the American history who had a chance to win.

(II) We are NO BODY'S SWEETIE. Nobama is degrading;

I predict that what we now think of as the abortion debate is going to radically change within our lifetime in a way that makes many of the strategic gambits employed by both sides irrelevant, or at least beside the point.
Specifically, I think that technology is going to make fetuses viable outside the womb earlier and earlier. In fact that is already happening. And eventually there will be artificial wombs, enabling doctors to extract a fetus from a pregnant woman during the first trimester with a procedure no more invasive or dangerous than abortion, and to keep that baby alive in an incubator.
Today we are used to thinking about a woman's right to end a pregnancy as the functional equivalent of ending the fetuses' life. In the future, however, that need not be so. A woman could be afforded the right to end her pregnancy, but be denied the right to end the life of the fetus. Although I am not an expert in abortion jurisprudence, it is at least conceivable that this could happen without any need to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

Sounds like a horror picture to me. Fetuses taken from women (unwillingly?) by the federal abortion police, brought to term in state owned incubators, turned over at "birth" to state orphanages, or in the case of surpluses, disposed of ....how? God help save us from such "technology". Fewer people want to be parents anymore - too costly, to much trouble - and so lets hand the whole apparatus to a state bureaucracy for the raising of fetuses.

No company would want to bear the duty of care implied by operating the machines, so the whole thing will have to be done by the government, perhaps through the existing public healthcare system, which is ill-equipped for the task. Population growth rockets, which has mixed effects, but mostly negative ones for the first two decades; poverty almost inevitably increases due to there being more disadvantaged kids. Adopted kids will have to conceal that fact or face taunting about being living abortions. Many will also have to learn at some point that that is what they are.

Our current services can't handle all the foster children, and I don't see the need to add more children to that equation. My college room mate grew up a foster child because her parents were constantly in jail or addicted to various drugs, and it is not a life to be envied. She experienced physical abuse, was required to go pick up her foster mother's drugs for her, and generally was a statistical anomaly when she was able to get into an excellent undergrad school. As a black female, she had no chance of being adopted. Until we can take care of children who are naturally conceived and then enter the foster care system, I see no reason to further burden it.

I imagine that medical equipment that complex will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and up - an Iraq War sized start-up cost.