People the business community is going to be extremely happy about.

The cases the court has heard in the past, particularly the ones around World War II, do point to some extent in the government's favor.

It's finally time [that] the basic questions about the scope of the president's power to hold people without the approval of the courts are really going to be confronted. If you're on U.S. soil, do you have a right to get into U.S. courts and have a lawyer?

[Roberts] is in exactly the same position that O'Connor and others have been, ... he's going to be on the court for 30 years, and those issues will continue to come before the court. There's no legal or ethical obligation to get rid of your holdings. But the other justices seem to have made a pragmatic decision that (doing so) is best for the operation of the court.

The president really would need to replace Justice O'Connor with a woman.

You can't ever label this court as totally conservative. It's always hard to put the court in a box of a particular label.

The Supreme Court explained to universities how it is that they can take race into account in admitting students, and it does lay a road map for the next 25 years on how they'll do that.

There is clear repudiation of the government's absolute position that the courts have no role. The Supreme Court did offer the executive a real change to balance how much procedure the detainees would get, it's not that they have all the rights of a U.S. citizen in every court case, but it does absolutely reject the president's claim that it is only his choice who gets to go to court and when.

The Supreme Court has never confronted the question of an American being held here [in the United States], or where you have a whole group of people who are being held in a U.S. base at one time without access to courts whatsoever.