So George W. Bush says, somewhat tentatively, that he will abide by the Supreme Court decision yesterday.

Does that mean he will close the national disgrace, Guantanamo, which will remain a blot and stain on the history of our nation as long as it endures?

No. It means he will try to ram yet more legislation through a Congress filled with compliant lackies in the Republican party, and cowardly Democrats, caving as usual and passing legislation that is unconstitutional on its face.

Any member of Congress who falls for this at this point should resign in disgrace. They clearly have absolutely no idea what their oath of office to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law means.

ROME – President Bush on Thursday strongly disagreed with a Supreme Court ruling that clears foreign terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts. Bush suggested new legislation may now be needed to keep the American people safe.
ADVERTISEMENT”We’ll abide by the court’s decision,” Bush said during a news conference in Rome. “That doesn’t mean I have to agree with it.” The court’s decision was sure to be popular in Europe, where many leaders have called for the closing of Guantanamo.

In its third rebuke of the Bush administration’s treatment of prisoners, the court ruled 5-4 that the government is violating the rights of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The court’s liberal justices were in the majority.

“It was a deeply divided court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented,” Bush said. “And that dissent was based upon their serious concerns about U.S. national security.”

Bush said his administration will study the ruling. “We’ll do this with this in mind — to determine whether or not additional legislation might be appropriate so we can safely say to the American people, ‘We’re doing everything we can to protect you.’
“

Bush disagrees with court’s Guantanamo ruling

Of course, Senator Lindsey Graham Gets an “F” in Constitutional Law.

As one commentator point points out:

It was Graham who assured his colleagues that the procedures employed under the Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs) were both reasonable and an “acceptable substitute” for a federal habeas corpus hearing, even though the CSRT rules denied detainees the right to counsel and to know or challenge all the “evidence” used to justify their detention. In November 2005, Graham offered and vouched for the less than due process measures used by the CSRTs and then sponsored the amendments to strip federal courts of the right to hear habeas petitions.

It was Graham who argued Congress should replace normal court habeas review with a severely restricted review by the D.C. Circuit Court of CSRT decisions. And it was Graham who led efforts to defeat habeas’ restoration and fostered the sham that what eventually became the infamous Military Commissions Act was reasonable because it was superficially “better” than what the Administration originally proposed, an argument Justice Roberts relied on.