Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected unconstitutional George W. Bush-era detention policies - locking up terrorists indefinitely without trial.

One would think, from the reaction of the certain justices, presidents and aspiring presidents, that we had just set hundreds of terrorists free and given them our expressed, written consent to plot another 9/11 catastrophe.

But there 5-4 decision in the case of Boumediene v. Bush merely gives enemy detainees a constitutional right to habeas corpus.

In short, enemy combatants held in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere may now challenge the legal basis for their detention in a federal court.

Here’s a brief breakdown of what the decision - once again the product of a crucial swing vote by Justice Anthony Kennedy - does and does not do.

• The ruling DOES uphold the fundamental right to habeas corpus, part of the legal system for, oh, a few centuries. The long and short of it, as a legal expert explains to us - the government cannot arrest and detain you without a legitimate reason, basically. Sorry, George.

• The ruling DOES ensure that Guantanamo cannot be the lawless society the administration has made it (and which is why detainees have been held at the base, away from actual U.S. soil, for six years now).

• The ruling DOES say that laws enacted by Congress at the administration’s urging do not circumvent individuals’ right to habeas corpus.

• The ruling DOES NOT close Guantanamo.

• The ruling DOES NOT order all detainees who have not been charged with an offense to be released, nor does it set a timetable for this.

• The ruling DOES NOT specify what factors the courts should consider when deciding whether the government can hold them, despite its stating that enemy detainees are entitled to a “prompt habeas hearing.”

In short, because the Boumediene v. Bush decision is rooted in the actual United States Constitution (imagine that) and not federal statutes, it’ll be much harder for Bush and Congressional cronies to continue doing what they’ve been so diligent at - drafting new laws to keep the courts out of this.

The primary season has been full of battles on the campaign trail.

The DNC vs. Florida and Michigan; Ending the war vs. extending the war; Gas tax holidays vs. common sense.

But one issue that has seemingly flown under the radar, yet one issue we hope to see debated in the upcoming general election, may be more important to a majority of citizens than anything else: the Supreme Court.

When the presidential votes are counted on November 4, the most lasting imprint of the decision Americans arrive at will not be a matter of policy or personality; but of the third, often overlooked branch of government.

Forget Iraq, gas prices and foreclosures: The next President will leave a generation’s worth of impact when he selects new Supreme Court justices.

Barack Obama or John McCain almost certainly will nominate at least one justice to the Supreme Court, with the possibility of three not far from the realm of reality.

And remember: A Supreme Court justice’s tenure outlasts any administration. Federal judges are appointed for life.

The seats on the highest court in the country will likely be vacant in 2013. John Paul Stevens is 88, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 75. As the Associated Press reports, should either or both be replaced by a Democratic president, policy will remain unchanged, as these are each liberal voices on the bench.

But consider a McCain presidency…

Continue reading this article …

For the first time in its history, the U.S. Supreme Court has waded into the political debate on global warming.

Under the George W. Bush administration, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has argued that carbon dioxide and the like aren’t pollutants under the Clean Air Act, and therefore, the agency has no power to regulate them.

But in a sweeping 5-4 decision released Monday, the Supreme Court rejected that position, declaring that Clean Air Act gives the EPA the authority to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars.

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion, and was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

The majority decided motor vehicle emissions make a “meaningful contribution to greenhouse gas concentrations” and thus, to global warming.

“A well-documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with a significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Respected scientists believe the two trends are related,” Stevens wrote.

Environmental groups applauded the Court’s decision.

“It’s an important signal that the Bush administration cannot continue to ignore the problem of global warming for political reasons when the science is so clear and there’s clear pressure from the public to move forward,” said Josh Dorner, spokesperson for the Sierra Club in Washington D.C.

“An enormous victory for the fight against global warming,” said Doug Kendall, whose group Community Rights Counsel filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

“The Supreme Court has recognized both the importance of the problem and the need for the federal government to act on the solution,” Kendall said, arguing the decision is a major victory for states who want to rely on the congressional Clean Air Act.

“The Supreme Court’s decision, in Massachusetts v. EPA, repudiates the Bush administration’s do-nothing policy on global warming,” said David Doniger, Natural Resources Defense Council’s attorney in the case.

Greenpeace, the well-known environmental group, viewed the decision as a political victory against the administration’s policy on climate change.

“This ruling shows the degree to which the Bush administration continues to be out of step, not only with the science, but with congress and public opinion,” said Chris Miller, director of global climate change at Greenpeace.

“All of these years that the Bush administration has been in office, instead of trying to find out ways that they can combat global warming, they’ve been denying the science, they’ve been fighting lawsuits … so this is a big defeat for them, and it’s also a big defeat for the automotive industry that spent a lot of time, energy and effort trying to beat this back,” said Miller.

Continue reading at ABCNews.com …