Reply #5: He ruled for George in the Padilla case.

[MissMarple]

He doesn't appear to support civil rights and due process and may support more power for the government over individual rights.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9268598/

<snip>

“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 Qaeda, an entity with which the United States is at war,” Judge Michael Luttig wrote. “We conclude that the President does possess such authority.”

A federal judge in South Carolina had ruled in March that the government cannot hold Padilla indefinitely as an “enemy combatant,” a designation President Bush gave him in 2002. The government views Padilla as a militant who planned attacks on the United States.

Broader implications for America
Padilla's attorney said his client would probably appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, adding that the 4th Circuit's 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.”