"Seriously, is there a way to challenge the redactions? This goes way beyond what can reasonably defended as national security and makes a mockery of why the Freedom of Information Act even exists."

Yes, redactions can be challenged. Redactions must be based on certain privileges. If one hasn't already been provided, Salon could request a what is known as a "privilege log". (There may be certain lingo regarding FOIA that I'm unfamiliar with, so it may be called something else. While in law school, I worked for an attorney challenging the FBI on a FOIA request, but I was pretty green then. "Privilege log" is a term from discovery in civil litigation, but its basically the same thing.) The privilege log will provide the basis for the redactions and must include certain information to allow the requesting party (or court) to be able to judge whether the redactions were proper. I think FOIA has a fee shifting provision, so if you successfully challenge withholdings/redactions, you can get some or all of your attorneys fees and costs reimbursed.

Also, based on what I've seen here, I can safely say I have no idea whether the redactions were proper or not.

What about cutting some discretionary *defense* spending? Why is that some kind of third-rail in American politics? I am beyond frustrated that a lower-than-planned increase in defense spending is treated like a reckless lowering of defense spending. If we could just accept that we can't afford being, and don't have to be, stronger than the rest of the world combined, I'm sure we could come up with something more significant that $17B in budget cuts.

There. Rant over. You may go about your business.

Judges do get to "make the law." Sorry, but it's true. Judges decide what contracts and statutes mean. Judges get to decide whether contracts violate public policy. Judges get to decide if a statute is unconstitutional. Judges get to decide if a novel theory of causation or injury is valid. Judges get to interpret common law and decide what the common law is when applied to a never-before-encountered set of facts. Sometimes judges do things like overthrow strict liability and create something new called "negligence" and sometimes later judges decide that negligence shouldn't apply to something and go back to a strict liability theory.

Call it what you want, but the effect of those acts is making law.

"As perplexing as her tortured tour may be, Edwards clearly has a couple of missions, and regaining her dignity and her sense of power are chief among them. One way to do that, of course, is to be the person who says everything that everyone else might be saying behind your back, so that they don't think you're clueless or weak. Another is to develop your own account of what happened, including the vulnerabilities that you are able to turn into strengths by expressing them with grace and beauty. Another is to trash that bitch who banged your husband in front of the whole world, with Oprah on your side."

I think there may a fourth goal: punish her cheating husband. Revenge is most definitely a dish best served cold, and forcing your cheating husband to invite Oprah into the home so Oprah can ask questions about the infidelity is very cold. Please note: I see no problem with this. In fact, I approve wholeheartedly.

"As long as the person selected bases his rulings on how the law is written and doesn't want to legislate or create policy from the bench I have no problem."

Still complaining about Brown v. Board of Education, eh?

Considering most of the dissident bondholders were vulture funds which purchased the bonds for pennies on the dollar, probably after Chrysler bond ratings were lowered to junk, I imagine that they are willing to take some risks, even the risk that they won't make money off their investment if company goes into bk.

Well, if the question is "do you agree with the reasoning behind Dred Scott?", I'm pretty sure that most every JD, from the Federalist Society to the National Lawyers Guild, are going to answer in the negative. I mean, have you ever met anyone defend Dred Scott, other than a pain-in-the-ass Con Law prof going all Socratic on you?

"We want courts to follow the law."

I suppose this may be hard for someone who is not a lawyer to understand, especially if that person has been drinking rightwing coolaid on this issue for years (activist judges!!!), but, at the appellate level, judges don't just follow the law, they shape the law. It's just how it works. Generally speaking, anything that reaches an appellate panel deals with stuff that is a bit beyond simply reading from a statutue or administrative code and applying the statutuory language to the specific facts of the issue (and even if it was, no statutory scheme can anticipate all potential fact patterns). How our legal system evolves, and the role appellate courts play in the system's evolution, is part of its genius. Empathy, therefore, is a perfectly reasonable trait for a judge to have.

Andrade.

No, the US Sup Ct didn't hand out the sentence, but it did decide whether the application of California's 3-strikes law was constitutional in his case.

Can someone please explain to me why someone would see insurance against a GM bankruptcy. I mean, I get why you would want it if you were a bondholder, but who would sell it to them?