Permit me to laugh at David Swanson

[MFrohike]

103. No

I don't consider it a decision because all a denial of cert means is that there weren't 4 votes to hear the case. It could be because the court feels the 2d circuit did such a bang up job of settling the law that the issue is settled. It could also mean that that 6 justices felt the underlying case was insufficient to rule on such an important point of law. It could also be that 6 justices just aren't interested in the subject. Ultimately, all we know is that they chose not to hear the case.

I only accept denials of cert as a ruling when they cause an irrevocable action. The Schiavo situation is an example. There's no polite way to put it, so I'll be blunt. Her death made further action moot because the underlying issue no longer existed. I doubt the same is true of the issue over detention. The court is well known for biding its time until ready to make decisions, so all we have now is persuasive authority from the 2d circuit. It's a good decision, but it's not the same as a Supreme Court ruling.