As paranoid as one has to be

I hate to be one to impugn the motives of members of the judiciary, even when a decision goes against how I'd want it decided. But sometimes, exceptions have to be made. And I can't help but to notice that it seems more than a bit suspicious that less than a week after a second vacancy pops up on SCOTUS, this decision gets released - particularly given that the decision could have been released at effectively any time:

A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously to reverse a judge's order that the government either charge or free Jose Padilla, who has been in custody for more than three years.

"The exceedingly important question before us is whether the President of the United States possesses the authority to detain militarily a citizen of this country who is closely associated with al-Qaida, an entity with which the United States is at war," Judge Michael Luttig wrote. "We conclude that the President does possess such authority."...

Padilla's lawyer said his client would probably appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, adding that the appeals court decision could have grave implications for all Americans.

"It's a matter of how paranoid you are," Andrew Patel said. "What it could mean is that the president conceivably could sign a piece of paper when he has hearsay information that somebody has done something he doesn't like and send them to jail - without a hearing (or) a trial."

As noted by the article, Luttig's name has been mooted as a possible Supreme Court nominee. And getting his name out in the media as the point man supporting infinite power for the President doesn't seem like a bad way to get pushed to the top of the list.

Never mind that the decision seems to contradict a Supreme Court precedent:

The Supreme Court held, in the case of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a Louisiana-born Saudi-American seized in Afghanistan, that American citizens seized overseas during military operations must be given access to American courts to challenge the legality of his detention.

If the Times' article is correct, Luttig found no difference between Hamdi's situation and Padilla's - but reached the opposite conclusion from the Supreme Court anyway. And if Luttig does get appointed to SCOTUS prior to an appeal from today's decision, then the Supreme Court deck will be stacked, as Luttig will have to recuse himself, necessitating a 5-3 margin to overturn today's decision. Which might be added motivation for Bush to nominate him.

Granted, Luttig's ideology may make him likely to decide in Bushco's favour in any event. But this seems like a blatant gift to the man who'll decide whether or not Luttig gets what's presumably his dream job.