civil libertarians are cautiously optimistic that the Court will likely reverse it.

They are "cautiously optimistic" about what the Court will "likely" do? Impossible, sez I.

@ Cole D'Biers

You wrote rum ruins egg nog. I don't give a shit about the Palestinians, but what;s the rum issue, and what spirits do you recommend?

Having skimmed a few letters here it is apparent the leftist line is "Israel is wrong". There are indications Obama will not change US policy in the region, and so I'm starting to like this man more and more. That he will enrage his lefty supporters is the icing, whipped cream, and cherries on the cake. There's even a complaint against Israel here from somebody who says he's from Europe. That's rich -- in my lifetime Europeans put each other in ovens, and now they're giving Israel morality lessons. I'm enjoying what's going on in Gaza although obviously wish it wasn't necessary, and I'm also enjoying Lefty obama-supporters' outrage. 2009 is going to be a great year (in some respects -- Obama won't be able to do shit about the economy, although that won't be his fault.)

...in the original German or Japanese

...to create a mechanism to transfer these cases to civilian courts? Just asking...

....while he refuses to do your bidding. He'll hold out for the deal he wants. If he listens to the liberal elite, he'd give up his bargaining chip for nothing. How dumb would that be! Meanwhile, Fitzgerald disgraced himself with an over the top press conference designed to prejudice Blago in the court of public opinion, from which the jurors will eventually be drawn. Boo to Fitzgerald, who produced only evidence that Blago is vulgar, not that he particularly elicited a bribe from any specific person, as criminal evidence would require (sorry to bring up the law, I know that's irrelevant once you folks get overheated).

....stink, according to people who've looked at them, which the ga-ga posters here most surely have not.

....Santa Claus.

I'm too lazy to figure out exactly why, but I find this move by Obama endearing, almost naive, and naivete is something to like in a person.

As someone who "has no dog in this fight" (other than I don't think it's my business who people choose to marry), what I find particularly poignant is that Obama gained nothing for the country for this, and had he not done it the country would not have been hurt a whit. This is an unforced error of the highest caliber. His law review "on the one hand and on the other" approach is not suitable to governing. I told people that during the primary campaign but I had better luck talking to the wall.

GG omits the main reason not to go into this: if they do and there's another 9/11, blame will fall on those who wanted investigation and prosecution. GG doesn't mention this motivation because he thinks people give a shit about the NY Times editorials. Here in the real world, things are seen as they are, i.e., no attacks since 9/11/01. One can argue, as in academia or even a courtroom, no proof that Bush/Cheney tactics prevented another attack. Go ahead and argue this after you've investigated/prosecuted/changed policy, and then an attack happens. That'll be bye=bye Obama in 2012.

....as to think Obama is going to go after possible prosecution of Bush administration officials? It's the last thing Obama could consider...with about 47% of the country voting against him,to tie up his administration is knots by jumping into a possible "execution of the (former) sovereign" seems fantastical, or at least dumb, considering all the stuff on Obama's plate. Can Greenwald, who has a mind we must highly respect, distinguish his hopes from his beliefs?

Welcome to the new era of transparency in government, whereby Obama, the only pol in Chicago not to know the governor was selling his seat, does not report any of this to the feds.

For 4,000,000 people in one spot outdoors? I smell trouble.

The case Glen cited has nothing to do with an agreement not to publish.

Carey says LW has the courage to do what she is doing, particularly leaving her job. I suggest a plan that will require even more courage: don't get out of bed, except to go to the kitchen and bathroom. Now that's what I call courageous, and you'll feel even better than you do now, you narcissistic nincompoop.

This whole piece is circular reasoning, but I don't have time to explain. Let's just say it's devoid of provable premises (FDR changed....what an argument!).

x

Sen. Feingold is a smart and good man, but his piece is silly. He and maybe thousands of others have written that Bush might be the worst president ever, and is definitely one of the very worst. So how would Bush see himself hurting his legacy if he misused his pardon power.

Note: one should not read the exception to the pardon power for impeachments to mean that Bush cannot pardon himself as to federal crimes, i.e., violations of federal penal laws. There is scholarly literature on both sides of that question.

x

I don't predict, but I have familiarity with the past, in this case, the 1964 Goldwater loss to LBJ, wherein, inter alia, the New York State Senate went Democratic for the first time in almost living memory. Four years later we had a Republican president-elect. I wouldn't gloat, Joe.

If the Dems were going to go the way you want, the article would be unnecessary, and if it were "necessary" it would be ineffectual. There's a flood of similar stuff out there -- imploring the Dems to go progressive -- and I don't see why the writers think there's any point. Is it to mobilize people? Ha!

....endless, boring women's complaints about everything?