I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts, John and Philip.
Roberts is particularly scathing in his laser-point accuracy. His
argument summarzied: The majority claimed that a decision needed to
be made regarding habeas corpus to expedite the process for the
detainees, but there's no guarantee that whatever the court does
would actually make the process faster.
In fact, it could even slow it down, which is something the
majority would have realized if they really understood the process
by which detainees could make their cases. What makes this
particularly abhorrent to Roberts, whose judicial philosophy
focuses on not making broad sweeping decisions that have bad
consequences, is that the majority didn't wait for the petitioners
to exhaust all their possible options before hearing their
case.
In other words, the whole problem is that the petitioners felt
they were being denied their due process rights, and yet they're
trying to skip using what due process is afforded to them.