This is like conflating supporters of the death penalty with those who revel in inflicting it. No one in his right mind delights in inflicting either death or torture, and many of those who decry Holder's selective prosecution - whither any federal prosecutions against the Black Panthers or ACORN for their election day intimidation and fraud? - of the CIA do not support torture for any reason or to any degree. The point is, it's sometimes necessary, and may well prove to remain so for as long as our savage adversaries engage in tactics even more horrible than anything uncovered in any of Holder's irresponsible snooping - or by GG's irresponsible name-calling - to date. It'll be interesting to see how Holder's prosecutions fare once confronted with the qualified immunity defense that they are entitled to raise, let alone before a jury, even a DC one.

After reading his excellent "The Nine" I'm surprised by his speculation as to what SCOTUS might do re: Roe v. Wade. It's almost directly contrary to his praise for CJ Rehnquist's refusal on stare decisis grounds to overturn Miranda, which with Gideon v. Wainwright and a few other choice scribblings of the Warren Court, I'd love to see consigned to the shredder of legal history. Look for SCOTUS to keep criticizing Roe while keeping it intact. BTW, it's only the Senate, not Congress, that confirms SCOTUS nominees.

McCain got my support back in 2000 when he essentially told CA's religious right to go to Hell - and paid the price for doing so. Whether he's a "maverick"* or not isn't the issue, his refusal to give in to those who presume to set the GOP agenda is. And that's reason enough for me to support him.

______

*Cf., all those "Question Authority" bumpersniggers you see out there, particularly in the SF Bay Area, where the authority that ought to be questioned is the authoritarianism of the permissive left.

many of you seem to have missed one of the points in SCOTUS' IN Voter ID decision: a history of voter fraud is NOT a prerequisite to enacting laws like these. The right to vote is so foundational that protecting it need not abide demonstrating damage to it. Think of it as a timely intervention for those who insist the Constitution IS "a suicide pact."

And, I wouldn't put too much faith in a study commissioned by the Democrats from an Anglo-American think tank.

Good, solid marshaling of the facts! Clear and able exposition of your position without rancour! I'm not surprised at your connection with the NYT.

I'd never heard of you until today's article, whose headline - and numerous "I-lines" - tempted me to ignore it. But, as pompous as I may be, I'm also a classically-educated liberal in the former, happier sense of that word, so I spent some eye-time with it. I won't make that mistake again - and will do my best to dissuade others from doing so as well.

As a lawyer who's been practicing in state and federal courts for over 25 years, I think I know a bit about the judiciary firsthand. McCain's correct when it comes to the arrogance of judicial power, particularly on the federal bench. Only now are we starting to finally see, in scattered decisions, the judiciary's own recognition of this fact. (The recent SCOTUS decision in the IN Voter ID case is one example.) Judges are there to apply the law, NOT to make it, which is the job of the people, whether directly or thru their legislatures. Anyone who can't understand - and accept - this simple constitutional premise should not be in the position of appointing judges.

If ANY of you who've preceded my post are as smart as you claim/pose/think you are, a simple re-read of your posts, ensemble, would reveal them to be nothing but a bunch of tired cliches. Surely some of you have a liberal arts degree of some sort? Wait, maybe that's the problem!

My question: what stellar law firm is representing this "poor victim" in LA Federal Ct? Whoever it is, it's NOT my idea of worthy pro bono.

Kudos to both Billary and Barack for going on FNC and being seriously interviewed with some hardball questions for a - dare I say it? - change. Both did well in the sense that they were appealing and more than held their own. But I'll never vote for either of them.

Billary's refusal to enforce federal immigration law against so-called "sanctuary cities" confirms she's still the railing old '60s radical who palled around with Bill Lan Lee and worked on behalf of Black Panthers accused of murder while she attended Yale Law. She's made a few cosmetic shifts to the center, but abandoning her permissive law and order stance is not one of them. Sorry, Billary; it'll take more than a village chorus mouthing your praises for me to ever support you and your erstwhile husband, who are really one in the same.

Barack's interview with Chris Wallace was a pleasant enough affair, but he's still too untried to get my vote. He, too, refuses to shake off his '60s garb, even though those clothes were hand-me-downs by the time he put them on. No, Barack, you've still got some growing up to do in the good judgment department before I can support you - although I've come close to doing so. Let's see how you handle yourself over the next eight years of the McCain presidency and a Republican Senate.