Music to My Ears

Here's an excerpt from the decision (pdf) on Jose Padilla's habeas corpus petition. (Respondent is the Bush administration, specifically the commander of the Naval Brig where Petitioner Padilla, has been held for years without charges as an enemy combatant.)

Simply stated, Respondent has not provided, and this Court has not found, any law that supports the contention that the President enjoys the inherent authority pursuant to which he claims to hold Petitioner. The Prize cases are chiefly concerned with enemy property, not enemy combatants, and Campbell concerns air strikes in another country. Obviously, neither of those issues are present here. Thus, the Court finds the two cases of little guidance.

As Justice Jackson stated, “Congress, not the Executive, should control utilization of the war power as an instrument of domestic policy.” Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 644 (Jackson, J., concurring). “There are indications that the Constitution did not contemplate that the title Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy will constitute [the President] also Commander-in-Chief of the country, its industries and its inhabitants. Id. at 643-44.

Accordingly, and limited to the facts of this case, the Court is of the firm opinion that it must reject the position posited by Respondent. To do otherwise would not only offend the rule of law and violate this country’s constitutional tradition, but it would also be a betrayal of this Nation’s commitment to the separation of powers that safeguards our democratic values and individual liberties.

For the Court to find for Respondent would also be to engage in judicial activism. This Court sits to interpret the law as it is and not as the Court might wish it to be. Pursuant to its interpretation, the Court finds that the President has no power, neither express nor implied, neither constitutional nor statutory, to hold Petitioner as an enemy combatant.

"Judicial activism," haw-haw. The judge getting a bit of a dig in there? I liked it. I also like the rhythm of "no power, neither express nor implied, neither constitutional nor statutory." Doesn't get much clearer, does it?

It's like a ray of sunshine. Though the Bushies will probably appeal it.