[link|http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf|Hamdan v. Rumsfeld] (185 page .pdf). It's an interesting read, especially the way the Stevens opinion deconstructs Thomas's dissent. Breyer's concurring opinion (p.82):

The dissenters say that today\ufffds decision would \ufffdsorely hamper the President\ufffds ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy.\ufffd Post, at 29 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). They suggest that it undermines our Nation\ufffds ability to \ufffdprevent[t] future attacks\ufffd of the grievous sort that we have already suffered. Post, at 48. That claim leads me to state briefly what I believe the majority sets forth both explicitly and implicitly at greater length. The Court\ufffds conclusion ultimately rests upon a single ground: Congress has not issued the Executive a \ufffdblank check.\ufffd Cf. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U. S. 507, 536 (2004) (plurality opinion). Indeed, Congress has denied the President the legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here. Nothing prevents the President from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary.

Where, as here, no emergency prevents consultation with Congress, judicial insistence upon that consultation does not weaken our Nation\ufffds ability to deal with danger. To the contrary, that insistence strengthens the Nation\ufffds ability to determine \ufffd through democratic means \ufffd how best to do so. The Constitution places its faith in those democratic means. Our Court today simply does the same.

It's a good opinion. It's rather startling to read the reasoning used by Thomas and Scalia, and to some extent Alito, though not surprising.

Cheers,
Scott.