A policy that ignores the Constitution …

There is an ocean of difference between “Ignores” and “interprets in a way that you disagree with.” Indeed, confusing the two expressions seems childish. Indeed, when someone joins a discussion on applied philosophy (which is what our Anglo-Saxon system is) by demanding those who disagree with him (on the job, at least) be jailed, makes it hard to believe that such a person joined the conversation with good intentions.

That’s why Ted Olson, our nation’s Solicitor General, a fierce conservative lawyer..

You can use ‘conservative’ as an incantation as much as you want… it does not serve to back up your claims.

Flipping the ad hominem or genetic fallacies on their head does not make them any less fallacious.

On the subject of picks generally, catch this from TPM Cafe [1]…

[Robert Gates poured] cold water on the idea of ever achieving a world free of nuclear weapons (an Obama campaign pledge).

Not only did Obama not appoint a democratic (or at least an openly pro-Democratic Republican, like Chuck Hagel) to SecDef, but Obama may even break his campaign pledge to rid of the world of nuclear weapons?

Who can believe this???

heh

[1] http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/26/gates_at_defense_pros_and_cons/#more

He surmised (as did others) there was no conceivable way you could successfully argue such incoherent legal fantasy in front of the Supreme Court, and he was right.

The Bush Admin lost every detainee rights case, provoking even Justice Scalia in Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld to say “Congress has not given the president the power to hold any American, even one who has taken up arms against his country, as an enemy combatant and instead must present criminal charges or let him go.”

This wasn’t just bad advice the lawyers gave, it was bad legal scholarship. It was offered with malice to enable the President to skirt laws and ignore others. That’s not a democracy, that’s something far worse.

If Eddie believes that every lawyer should come to the same conclusion on every case, he is likewise confused as to the nature of our Anglo-Saxon legal system.

Michael,

The Nation‘s criticism — that Geithner is too much like Summers — sounds like an endorsment to me!

Good news on Gates, obviously.

Purpleslog,

Agreed.

[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/11/11/bad-news-from-taiwan.html

John Yoo, David Addington, etc. should be in a cell, not some CIA guy who was given the legal go-ahead by them. If the lawyer tells you its legal, its not your fault that that lawyer was unqualified and not chosen for his skill but for his ideology.

Conservative legal scholars such as Jack Goldsmith as well as the uniformed JAG officers and legal counsels for the FBI, NSA, etc. are the source of my criticism here, not some left-wing rag like the Nation or Daily Kos.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081208/greider_web

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/25/1688880.aspx

I think of it a positive indicator: taking responsibility for personal safety and security and a sketicism of GOV.

Now Tom I don’t think Tom is a small gov sort of guy, so he might see skepticism of GOV as a bad thing.

I don’t.

And I don’t own a gun, BTW. Not yet, anyways.

[1] http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2008/11/were_number_one–with_a_bullet.html

Strangely, here is a plus for the new AG: At one time (maybe still?) he didn’t think [1] the terrorist should be covered by the Geneva Conventions (and neither do I).

–
[1]
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/24/obama-ag-2002-terrorists-arent-protected-by-the-geneva-conventions/