This was the proper course of action for the high court.

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear the case of two Guantanamo Bay prisoners who want to challenge the legality of military commissions.

Salim Ahmed Hamdan and Omar Khadr face commission trials — Hamdan for acting as a driver and bodyguard for
Osama bin Laden, and Khadr for throwing a grenade that killed a U.S. Green Beret soldier.

Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer would have granted the request to hear the case, the court said in turning it down. It takes four votes, though, to hear a case.

The court’s action follows its April 2 decision not to step into related aspects of the legal battle regarding other Guantanamo Bay detainees. The issue there is whether the prisoners may go to federal court to challenge their confinement.

To challenge the legality of the military commissions set up by the President and approved of by Congress with the Military Commissions Act is to challenge the idea that Congress sets the rules for the military, establishes our federal courts outside of the Supreme Court and defines the jurisdiction of those courts.  Unfortunately, Congress does have all of those powers explicitly assigned to it in the Constitution.

Some people may not like the Military Commissions Act as policy.  They may feel that it isn’t the proper way to handle detainees in the war on terror, but to claim that it is somehow unconstitutional is absurd on it’s very face.