This item sorta kinda relates to the last post —

Charles Lane of the Washington Post reports that the Supreme Court might hear a case that challenges Bush’s views of presidential power. The case involves a former chauffeur to Osama bin Laden

In oral arguments Tuesday, an attorney for Salim Ahmed Hamdan will ask the justices to declare unconstitutional the U.S. military commission that plans to try him for conspiring with his former boss to carry out terrorist attacks.

Significant as that demand is, its potential impact is much wider, making Hamdan’s case one of the most important of Bush’s presidency. It is a challenge to the broad vision of presidential power that Bush has asserted since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

In blunt terms, Hamdan’s brief calls on the court to stop “this unprecedented arrogation of power.” Just as urgently, the administration’s brief urges the court not to second-guess the decisions of the commander in chief while “the armed conflict against al Qaeda remains ongoing.”

There are several ways this could go, Lane says. SCOTUS might refuse to hear the case. Or, since Roberts will have to sit out (he had ruled on the case while he was on a federal appeals court), a decision could come down to a 4-4 split. But there’s a large possibility the court will challenge Bush’s claims for extraordinary powers as a “war president.”

“There are so many issues in the case — whether the president was authorized by the Constitution, or a statute, to set up the commissions — right down to exactly how to fit this kind of a war into the existing laws of war,” said Richard Lazarus, a law professor at Georgetown University who specializes in Supreme Court litigation. “Most cases have two or three or four issues. This one has 10 or 12, which makes it very hard to handicap.”

Whether designating an American citizen as an “enemy combatant” subject to military confinement, denying coverage under the Geneva Conventions to detainees at Guantanamo Bay, or using the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on domestic communications, Bush has said that the Constitution and a broadly worded congressional resolution passed three days after Sept. 11, 2001, empower him to wage war against terrorists all but unencumbered by judicial review, congressional oversight or international law.

BTW, on the appeals court, Roberts ruled against Hamdan and in favor of presidential power.