Opinion Round-Up

The war of words over the Hamdan ruling is particularly fierce on the op-ed pages of today’s papers. Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post believes that the “robed eminences…didn’t have to issue a ruling this bad.” The full article can be found here.

John Yoo, in an op-ed from the L.A. Times that can be found here, also voices his strong displeasure; he writes, “The court’s decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ignores the basic workings of our separation of powers.”

On the other side of the debate, Harold Meyerson of the American Prospect agrees with the Court’s holding but is skeptical of what Congress will do next; his thoughts can be found here.

Marty Lederman, writing at Balkinization, is also thinking about the repercussions of Hamdan, but he focuses here on the potential impact that the ruling might have on the NSA wiretapping program. [UPDATE: The article by Cass Sunstein that Marty is responding to can be found here.]

At the Volokh Conspiracy, Eugene Volokh has a post in the wake of the recent state court rulings on gay marriage entitled “The U.S Supreme Court and Same-Sex Marriage” that can be read here.

Finally, the editorial page of the New York Times reminds us again (here) of its belief that the Supreme Court is largely in the hands of Justice Kennedy.