« Are Appointed Judges Better Than Elected Judges? | Main | "Law Talk" Podcast Presents Richard Epstein and the Classical Liberal Constitution »

September 08, 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


O hai - I can has link?


O sry - link eezy 2 find:


Bonus link:


Kimball Corson

I mentioned long ago on this blog that David Addington has been a major problem in regard to the lawlessness of this administration. Backed so staunchly by Cheney, he has a very forceful personality and is snide and ridiculing, rather than legal and considered. As a serious maker of legal policy, he is essentially unchecked and too well out of the public eye. Goldsmith and Seymour Hersh should both be thanked for putting the public spotlight on Addington. It should stay there a good bit so that his true colors may be seen.

Kimball Corson

By the way, Seymour Hersh is another University of Chicago graduate.


Ever notice how the noble gent writing the book, for which a juicy advance awaits, of course, is invariably the "good guy" and the "man of character"? QED. Where would we be without the Goldsmiths of the world, pray tell (whose hero in Lincoln-shssh, let's not ruin the pristine image-alone felt it right to suspend habeas corpus)?

Thatta boy, Abe.

And ever notice how these same guys are always saving the constitution, stabilizing the republic and preserving the democratic spirit? Or so we're told. What a hoot. Enough of the melodrama already. Please. My eyes are weary and my sentiments tire from reading every other year about the latest, greatest man of the people. I aint buying the integrity-exclusivity schtick. The whole of the matter has become an anti-epiphany.

If it's not hero-worship of the legendary man who made McCarthy apologize or golden myths of Ellsberg and The Pentagon Papers or magic of Hersh and Mai Lai or rich tales of Deep Throat or...let me recount...the endless sagas of mortal giants who have singlehandedly disemboweled the du jour Bush monsters, well....

could we just once-please, I beg- have some poor bastard admit that he, as my grandpop used to say, just had an ox to gore?

That would be the true man of character, ladies.

Kimball Corson


Do you genuinely believe this adminstration has not raised serious constitutional issues and questionable solutions to them?



Of course legal issues have arisen during-and because of-the Bush Administration. And your point is what? Therefore the sky is falling? That that is somehow unique to this executive branch?

Do yourself a favor and try to get beyond the political kneejerkism of the day. Switch your leftwing blog labotomization for a moment or two. Please. Or at least take a neutral peek at history. Just because Prof Stone needs to portray each and every Bush decision as the instantiation of evil and portray virtue as wearing the visage of his (past and present) ideological bedfellows doesnt mean he has a clue. It just means he has an agenda. And a handy cult-audience of dupes like you.

Truth be told, every executive branch has had its jurisprudential skeletons and dances with constitutional abuses. Let us count the ways. Nobody said it was going to be easy, or pretty. If Lincoln can, as he did, unabashedly suspend habeas corpus for half the nation and Roosevelt can intern 120k Japs and JFK can spy on MLK, then why would you find yourself all aflutter over some dubious executive actions toward terrorists? Especially during a war? Perhaps you have a sweet and gentle template to recommend for dealing with these new-age monsters who, btw, see your liberties and rights as handy instruments for digging your egalitarian grave.

Oh, wait. Let me guess. Your template is the constitution. The BOR. Of course. Silly of me, silly old me. How in the world could that precious "document" become jeopordized and stained-worse,ignored-by someone as small and mindless as Bush? Where's his sense of fair play?

Well, that's easy to answer. He followed the patterns of those before him. Yes, sir. As they say, you can look it up. And somehow, despite the rhetoric, the republic endures. Who'd have thunk it.


Interestesting, I may need to read up on American history to get a better understanding of what reshufflex has said. As a Canadian I am admittedly ignorant of much of your history. Thanks for sparking my interst to read something new.


Speaking of history;

Maybe the children of the corn will solve Washington Establishments Problems with lack of Judicial Recourse. The wizard of Oz, Alice in Wonderland, Lucy in the Skys with Diamonds in her Eyes hasn't sufficed with Ashcrofts' comment about one females place-and of course a female with the glass ceiling imposed in eighty three and male partner of choice denied by the roof. So who is concerned about survival for twenty-five years with so much illegality and with only "4 to 12 thousand pecuniary US dollars per year with she employed to do all for the men and nothing more than one simple mother manager of a waffle house and NEWT GENWRICHS" string lining to her. Republicans and NEWT GEnwrich thought noone cared and that only waffle house would sue.
So many little poppy cocks puffs and snoops enjoyed pulling their private string for a nice salary, ford vehicle, family rights and parapalegic parking permit for close parking still with use of all four of their limbs and another female with little of nothing cited for their driving failure. The one continues to live in an auto, but, unlike Phil Gramm's grandmother had no gun in her truck, only people wishing to push her into her vehicle, 78 beauville, with conspirators having altered it with a pipe and hose that puts methodone nerve gas inside and perpertrators have taken off with copies of court filings which designates the ensued for at least two more years and not back to 1999.


Geoff Stone is so funny. I feel like I'm in a museum. One minute, it's conservatives are evil, craven, immoral, selfish, dishonest, etc. In other words, they're not merely wrong, confused, biased, or mistaken, they're knowingly inflicting harm on their country. But then, George Bush-like, he can look into the eyes and soul of Professor Goldsmith, just like Bush knows the would-be Russian autocrat is A-OK and loves his family.

Don't get me wrong, I think Goldsmith is fine and principled, but then again so is Jack Yoo and others who disagree with Stone's pro-terrorist reading of Geneva and US law.


Many public servants are good people. I believe they want to do their jobs well, while acting as thoughtful human beings and honorable citizens. Some public servants- Tenet and Goldsmith in particular- have written books about their insights and experiences while in public office. Books are helpful. However, I think that these men- and possibly even Mr. Comey with his hospital experience- should have brought their concerns to light while in office instead of resigning without making charges against the Bush administration. These men may be a bit more evolved than the administration that initially appointed them, and they may have 'seen the light' regarding the Bush administration's attempts to possibly bypass laws or pass the buck, however I think that their leaving w/o telling what they knew then allowed injustice to continue. The truth did not go forward in time. I realize that speaking up requires great courage and that one can be slammed personally and professionally for doing so. But, hard as it is, that is the responsibility as a (high ranking) public servant. Whats done is done, yet, some information may have become known before the last presidential election and the country could have changed course in some respects.


I'd like to jump all over Mr. Roach's phrase "Stone's pro-terrorist reading of Geneva and US law."

Mr. Stone's reading is not pro-terrorist, it supports the rule of law. By imputing that Mr. Stone supports terrorism, you rob yourself of credibility among serious people. You are welcome to disagree with Mr. Stone's analysis, but the minute you start falsely slinging mud, you lose.



"By imputing that Mr. Stone supports terrorism, you rob yourself of credibility among serious people."

Where were you when Goldsmith, who's slightly more notable than the irrepressible Roach, was being smeared as the (co)author of "torture memos"? Or did we here a peep from you when Gonzo was McCarthyized by the left at every waking hour?

No. Of course not.

If youre going to bellyache whenever one of your ilk is accused of wearing today's version of the Scarlet letter, i.e.,pro-terrorist, it would help your credibility if you'd display some episodic angst when the other team gets routinely indicted as being Hitlerian.


Mr. Reshufflex, your argument is absurd. You insinuate that I am a hypocrite because you have not seen any instances of my sharing your views. No, I don't share your views. No, that doesn't make me a hypocrite.

I will say this: I suspect that there's a wisp of a valid point buried in your overblown rhetoric. Perhaps if you scale back the venom, stick to the facts, and concentrate on logic rather than bombast, you will be able to offer something interesting.

The comments to this entry are closed.