Thought that last post explained it pretty well. I'll try to put it simpler. The professor, although caring about wrongfully accused inmates, is just wanting to prove to congress that they are wrong in what they did. Doesn't matter if he did or didn't care about inmates. It is not about whether someone should or shouldn't live, whether someone commited a crime or didn't, or whether abortion is right or wrong. It is about LAW, about the CONSTITUTION. The point is that congress has gone against the constitution, thus opening a door that they shouldn't have opened. We have the court system for these things. It's not congress's place to do what they did. They do have checks and balances, but is not a check/balance. Congress does not interpret the constitution or laws, our judicial system does. And even if they did, they just went against the constitution. This was just a move by mainly conservatives to follow their own opinion and maybe try to get votes.
What I was saying about the professor is he would just want to show Congress they screwed up. Got it?