In Thomas' dissent against the supreme court ruling this week, he makes an argument consistant with that in the Roe v Wade ruling. Their argument goes that because abortion is not specifically mentioned in the constitution, how can it be implied.
So what does Thomas mean when he writes in his dissent to the majority opinion in Hamdan v Rumsfeld:
"The plurality's newly minted clear-statement rule is also fundamentally inconsistent with the nature of the common law which, by definition, evolves and develops over time and does not, in all cases, 'say what may be done.'"
So presidential powers can be implied when not specifically stated but not abortion.
Just another example of the extreme right wing judicial activist judge. He is really earning Bush's admiration.