jaunthie | Well, thank goodness

Today the Supreme Court ruled that what the Bush Administration is doing at Guatanamo and elsewhere is in fact illegal: the military tribunals it created to try terror suspects violate both American military law and the Geneva Conventions.

Gee, ya think? Constitutionally, this one was a no-brainer. And yet it was far closer than it should have been (5-3, with Roberts DQd because he ruled in favor of Rumsfeld in the appeal), and the trend of for-or-against shows clearly where the court is headed:

I'm glad the court did the right thing. I'm just scared that in three more years, Twinkie might fill enough slots to the point where another such case would wind up with the Supreme Court completely forgetting its constitutional-interpretation role in favor of His Majesty the President and His Divine Executive Privilege. And I'm also scared by the spin being put on this by much of the MSM. Just look at the varied headlines, and then guess the news vendor, and what you think the slant is:

Supreme Court voids Bush's "blank check"
Supreme Court blocks war crimes trials
Justices say Bush went too far at Guantanamo
Supreme Court Blocks Trials at Guantanamo
Supreme Court Rejects Guantanamo Tribunals
US Guananamo tribunals "illegal"
Gitmo War Crimes Trials Blocked
Supreme Court blocks Bush
Supreme Court rebukes Bush on war trials

Fascinating, no? You can of course click on the links to find out if you're right. :)

Edited to add These were the headlines visible from the front page at the time I noted them down. Note that many of these major news sources change the banner headline on stories multiple times throughout the day. Why? Sometimes it's because more info has come in - but frequently I suspect it's just to lure in more readers and/or trick back previous readers with the idea that the story is a new one. In these days of clickthrough ad revenue, it makes sense...