Congratulations, Brian. Best of luck in your goal of establishing the University of Chicago as one of the top centers of law and philosophy.
Thank you, Chuck Schumer, for reminding all of us just how completely and pathetically useless Democrats are. Schumer will vote in favor of Judge Mukasey’s appointment as Attorney General because Mukasey assured Schumer that, were the Senate to pass a law banning a certain interrogation technique (i.e., waterboarding, which Mukasey conveniently can’t decide is torture even though it’s the classic example of precisely that), the President would not have the authority under the Bush Administration’s "Commander-in-Chief trumps everything" theory to disregard such a law. Of course, Congress has already done so. And a law expressly forbidding waterboarding isn’t going to get passed, but even if it did, it’s obvious what would happen next: Interrogators would be told that no, they can’t use water to simulate drowning, but nothing forbids them from using orange juice.
James Frey’s (arguably) overfictionalized memoir — remember the big scandal about how millions of readers were defrauded because it was a great big lie? Only 1700 people asked for refunds. Maybe Oprah will switch sides again.
It’s apparently straight-up military rule in Pakistan: General Musharraf has suspended Pakistan’s constitution and fired multiple judges on its supreme court for choosing to follow the law rather than his demands. Musharraf argues that this is justified by a state of 9/11, I mean, a state of emergency. So in comparison, it’s totally no big deal that President Bush has argued for unchecked presidential/CIC authority based on a permanent war on nightmares I mean terror, or that Rudy Giuliani is, as the Onion correctly satirized, running for President of 9/11 (or as Biden explained, "There’s only three things he mentions in a sentence — a noun, a verb, and 9/11.")
And don’t forget to change your clocks!
Accidental Blogger 
3 responses to “Mid-Weekend Roundup (Joe)”
Good roundup, Joe – you covered a lot of ground. Now you know why I have repeatedly railed against “cowardly Dems” on A.B.
As for Schumer caving in on Mukasey, I am not that surprised. After all he was the Democratic sponsor of the judge in the senate. Many have suggested that Bush went with Mukasey and not Ted Olson (the choice of conservative Republicans), partly to neutralize Schumer. Here is the the lame excuse Schumer gives for his support of Mukasey: (Huffington Post)
“I deeply oppose it,” Schumer said of waterboarding. “Unfortunately, this nominee, indeed any proposed by President Bush, will not agree with this. I am, however, confident that this nominee would enforce a law that bans waterboarding.”
Schumer, who was Mukasey’s chief Democratic sponsor, said the retired judge told him that if Congress passes a law banning waterboarding “the president would have absolutely no legal authority to ignore such a law.” Schumer said Mukasey said he would enforce any congressional ban on the controversial interrogation method.
Okay, so we know what Schumer is up to. But what was Sen Feinstein thinking? And these two are supposed to be liberal and against torture?
Oh, and thanks for reminding me to put back the clocks. But remember also to be careful!
LikeLike
As a Californian, let me express my disgust with Senator Feinstein — when she’s not voting for the Bush tax cuts, or supporting the Iraq War resolution, she’s backing torture-waffler Mukasey on the grounds, basically, that he’s not as bad as Alberto Gonzales. Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations!
LikeLike
And these two are supposed to be liberal and against torture?
That’s bizarre in its own right — it seems to be the case that one has to be liberal these days to be against torture. Torture!
LikeLike