Where to draw the line for Habeas Corpus

There's a lot of controversy over the recent supreme court split decision re habeas corpus.

The constitution says "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." That's clear enough.

But it seems to me that the central issue is this: was it really the founders' intent to have habeas corpus apply to the invaders themselves, or just to those being defended?

What about invaders who are sworn to the destruction of all we stand for? Perhaps habeas corpus is a privilege of status as a US citizen, resident or authorized visitor.

Are soldiers going to have to take judges onto the world's battlefields in order to decide who can be detained? Is it OK to kill enemy soldiers in time of war, but not to detain them?

What if we're invaded by space aliens? Does habeas corpus apply to Martians? What about microbes? Shouldn't a microbe have its day in court before being quarantined?

Why don't the dems get it?

There's some smart democrats out there, right? They're not all idiots, are they?

So why can't they understand that if you raise taxes in the state, then investment will flee the state? If federal taxes are raised, then investment will flee the country. Studies have shown time and time again that this is what happens. Why can't the democrats see that?

Do they really think that the rich folks in Silicon Valley and in Tinseltown are simply going to fork over larger percentages of their income when the gov't raises tax rates? Don't these people have TAX ADVISORS who themselves earn big bucks by advising the rich folks how to AVOID TAXES by shifting assets to other jurisdictions? Why don't they get it?

Keeping those assets working here requires low tax rates. Why don't they get it?

Liberals continue to expect that if you raise taxes, government revenues will increase. Well studies have shown time and time again that raising taxes has a negative effect on government revenues. LOWERING taxes is what raises government revenue, by increasing investment. Why can't they understand? Why?

We continue to see people leaving high-tax states for low-tax states. Do the dems have some rationale for why this is? Are the deserters bad people? If taxes were raised further, would the deserters suddenly decide to stay? What's WRONG with you people?

I continue to be gobsmacked at the persistent irrationality of people who believe we can and should tax our way to prosperity. Balancing budgets is important, but SPENDING CUTS are what's needed - NOW!! - not higher taxes.

The Billary Creature

So the Billary believes that the deal with Obama, Florida, and Michigan regarding the penalty for moving the primaries ahead of the Feb 5 deadline can be trashed whenever it suits it.

Does the Billary believe that any deal, once made, is subject to re-interpretation and re-negotiation?

In the unimaginable event that the Billary were to re-occupy the white house, what would the creature's proclivity for re-interpreting and re-negotiating everything in its favour say about America's position in the world? (remember how the Billary even attempted to re-negotiate the meaning of the word is?)