A reasonable person might see habeas corpus as a legitimate constitutional topic.

From June 17th's Star Tribune

A reasonable person might see habeas corpus as a legitimate constitutional topic.

The day after the Supreme Court ruled that detainees imprisoned at Guantanamo are entitled to seek habeas corpus hearings, John McCain called it "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." Well.

Does it rank with Dred Scott vs. Sanford (1857), which concocted a constitutional right, unmentioned in the document, to own slaves and held that black people have no rights that white people are bound to respect? With Plessy vs. Ferguson (1896), which affirmed the constitutionality of legally enforced racial segregation? With Korematsu vs. United States (1944), which affirmed the wartime right to sweep American citizens of Japanese ancestry into concentration camps?

The rest can be found at this link.

I'm sure most of you like George Will, but I'm wondering how many of you came to the same conclusions he did in this piece.