What makes this war different is not that the president 
    acted while Congress watched but that the Supreme Court 
    interfered while fighting was ongoing. Given its seizure 
    of control over some of society's most contentious issues,
    such as abortion, affirmative action and religion, maybe 
    the court's intervention should come as no surprise. But 
    its effort to inject the Geneva Convention into the war on
    terrorism - even though the treaties do not include 
    international conflict with non-states that violate every 
    rule of civilized warfare - smacks of judicial 
    micromanagement. The Supreme Court has never before 
    imposed its preferred interpretation of a treaty governing
    warfare on the president during war, and Geneva has never 
    been understood to give enemy combatants rights in our 
    courts. 

    The court displays a lack of judicial restraint that would
    have shocked its predecessors. In World War II, the 
    Supreme Court established precedents directly to the 
    contrary. To evade these previous rulings, the court 
    misread a law ordering it not to decide Guantanamo Bay 
    cases, narrowed the very same authorization to use 
    military force that it had read broadly just two years 
    ago, ignored centuries of practice by presidents and 
    Congress on military commissions and intruded into the 
    executive's traditional national security prerogatives. 
    Justices used to appreciate the inherent uncertainties and
    dire circumstances of war, and the limits of their own 
    abilities. No longer.