Supreme Court

The Supreme court dealt many blows to the then president George W. Bush's Guantanamo policies in 2004, 2006 and 2008, where they ruled in previous cases that detainees had the right to contest their detention in US courts and hear the evidence against them.” The Guantanamo Bay controversy shows that Supreme Court justices do not have to rule the way their appointer necessarily wanted them to. This shows how justices can act independently from the politics of their arrival to the court. Based on the values of the constitution, I believe the framers would allow these “war crimes” to be tried on our soil. Modern values suggest that they should not be detained on our soil, but in another country. But, when you think about it I would rather have them closer to us to be observed, so I would not mind them being detained in the US. A possible solution could be perhaps reopening Alcatraz or another jail that is isolated, but still technically in the United States? 
On Obama’s plan to close the facility at Guantanamo Bay, I believe that it should be closed due to all the controversy it is causing. A new facility is obviously required to move the detainees. Refer to my previous answer for a possible solution. The G.B. facility should not be closed until a designated detention area is guaranteed. 
Overall, I do agree with the law that the house passed about not allowing the detainees to be transferred here. The Supreme Court should be working with congress to find a new detention facility in this hemisphere. Countries do not want the detainees in their country either, but I am sure a country like Mexico would not mind us keeping our war criminals in the barren desert in a new facility. The Supreme Court should mandate a new Facility to be built somewhere rapidly whether if be in a foreign country or not. But I suggest it stays relatively close to the United States border so that trials can be held for these criminals on domestic soil.
There is no way that the Framers could have accounted for all of the components of today’s society. I strongly agree with Breyer’s argument that we have to learn the gist of want the framers wanted behind their words in the constitution rather than just the literally meaning. A lot of ideas came together to come up with the identity of the constitution. The values are very important to comprehend if this country’s democracy is supposed to work how the Framers wanted it to in their mindset. Loose constructions make the most sense to me in today’s world. 
Gun control is always going to be a big deal, and I am going to summarize how I feel on it in a couple lines. No rifle with a firing rate of semi-automatic or higher will be sold to people without a background check and a strictly regulated and enforced license necessary to bear these “large” arms. Fires per second (FPS) is the reasonable way to limit guns from the general public. A limit has to be drawn somewhere, but never should a fully automatic weapon should be sold to the public nor should people not be allowed to bear arms at all. 
I believe Breyer has been around long enough to separate himself from the politics of the situation. Chief Justice Roberts knows better than to get himself involved or be affected by a political statement made by anyone. It is human nature to have different perspectives on things, but in the judicial department you have to just rule on the enforcement and execution of laws. They never need to appeal to political personas at all.

based on article: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/index.html#/v/4456313/justice-stephen-breyer-on-fns/?playlist_id=86913