A sampling of editorial opinion from papers around the country on yesterday's big Supreme Court decision:

New York Times: There is an enormous gulf between the substance and tone of the majority opinion, with its rich appreciation of the liberties that the founders wrote into the Constitution, and the what-is-all-the-fuss-about dissent. It is sobering to think that habeas hangs by a single vote in the Supreme Court of the United States - a reminder that the composition of the court could depend on the outcome of this year's presidential election. The ruling is a major victory for civil liberties - but a timely reminder of how fragile they are.

Wall Street Journal: Justice Kennedy's opinion is full of self-applause about his defense of the "great Writ," and no doubt it will be widely praised as a triumph for civil liberties. But we hope it is not a tragedy for civil liberties in the long run. If there is another attack on U.S. soil - perhaps one enabled by a terrorist released under the Kennedy rules - the public demand for security will trample the Constitutional delicacies of Boumediene. Just last month, a former Gitmo detainee killed a group of Iraqi soldiers when he blew himself up in Mosul. And he was someone the military thought it was safe to release.

Justice Jackson once famously observed that the Constitution is "not a suicide pact." About Anthony Kennedy's Constitution, we're not so sure.

Washington Post: THE SUPREME Court ruling yesterday that those held at Guantanamo Bay have a constitutional right to challenge their detentions in federal court is a welcome victory for due process and the rule of law. It completes a signal and totally avoidable failure by President Bush, who will leave office with the nation's regime for holding al-Qaeda combatants in shambles. And it leaves unanswered many questions that will undoubtedly trigger more litigation.

New York Daily News: Five justices, the slimmest majority, took the unprecedented, unwarranted, unworkable step of ruling that foreigners captured in Afghanistan and on other battlefields have rights under the U.S. Constitution. And, worse, can file lawsuits to enforce them.

This isn't just a decision to be quibbled with. It is a monumental example of judicial overreaching, issued with utter disregard for the perilous consequences of elevating extreme - emphasis on "extreme" - legal niceties over national security.

Los Angeles Times: Although the ruling rested on an interpretation of the Constitution, it also reflected the court's impatience at the glacial pace of due process for suspects who have been imprisoned for six years. In a dissent caustic even for him, Justice Antonin Scalia referred to detainees as "alien enemies" (while suggesting that the ruling "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed"). But presumption is not proof. As Kennedy pointed out, a detainee is entitled to a "meaningful opportunity" to demonstrate that he is being held in error.

Bush can rail against the Supreme Court or he can honor the spirit as well as the letter of this ruling and work with Congress to reform a system that has delayed justice for detainees and dishonored America in the eyes of the world. And he should do what both of the men aspiring to succeed him have promised to do -- close Guantanamo.

Philadelphia Inquirer: The Supreme Court yesterday took back the moral high ground in America's fight against terrorism, even as President Bush quickly signaled that he'd gladly surrender it again.

Neither Congress nor Bush's successor in the White House should let that happen.

The court's historic ruling upholding the right of hundreds of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detainees to challenge in the federal courts their years-long captivity redresses an awful injustice committed in the nation's name.

Now a dark chapter in the history of a proud democracy could be nearing an end, since there's no longer a shred of doubt that Guantanamo should be closed.

Boston Globe: Justice Kennedy is right to confirm that constitutional principles should not be sacrificed because of emergencies like Sept. 11. "Liberty and security can be reconciled," he wrote, "and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law." The government should demonstrate just how strong that framework is by using federal courts or military courts-martial to try any terrorism detainees accused of specific crimes.

USA Today: It's true that the Supreme Court has now given detainees more due process than they would get just about anywhere in the world. That's what makes the United States different, a place where law survives and thrives, as Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, even "in extraordinary times."

San Francisco Chronicle: The Bush administration shredded this and other civil liberties under the guise of protecting Americans after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Time and again - most recently Thursday - the White House presented a false choice between pursuit of terrorism and respect for rights of the accused.