Anyone who tries to analyze the US Supreme Court in terms of one, four or even eight-year snapshots shows a remarkable ignorance of history in general and this institution in particular.

The Court's actions can only really be judged with a long lens.

While superficially it can certainly be said that the current Court is moving to the Right, it is most certainly true that the last sixty years of jurisprudence has been mostly marked by a steady tack to the Left.

As a lawyer with strong liberal bent, I confess to some trepidation regarding the philisophical make-up of the current Court. However, I am talked off the ledge of my darkest fears by the knowledge that -- historically -- few Courts get the opportunity for truly revolutionary change, and fewer still take it when it presents itself. This is not to say that none of the discussion in these books and this review is important. To the contrary, even small, unpermanent changes to the general tenor of the law are vitally important to segments of society of varying sizes depending upon the particular issue.

But just as physical evolution will surely push our species ever onward and upward, intellectual and moral evolution will continue to serve progressive, rather than regressive, philosophies. Freedom can, from time-to-time, be stifled, but I truly believe it cannot ever be killed.

Snow's great skill was his ability to be liked by the press even when they know he was lying through his teeth. Whether because he really is that nice a guy, or because the press continued to think of him as "one of their own" after he moved over from Fox, I cannot say. But lie through his teeth he did, cheerfully and with a fair amount of skill.

I'm sure Perino is a swell person, too, but from what I've seen of her appearances to date, she has two significant problems.

First, she's just not that good at lying. She gets a dodgy look about her every time she lays out the big whopper. No matter what else you say about a White House "press secretary" (should we finally just change the title to propaganda director?), you have to be able to sell even the vilest shit like it was shinola.

Second, she doesn't seem all that bright -- or at least all that quick on her feet. She will get caught up soon, I imagine, in some obvious mis-statement, which will I think cause the press to really come after her, transferring some of the frustration with previous prop-dirs to her.

I almost feel sorry for her, until I realize that the day after her last day in the White House will be her first day at some cushy right-wing org making twice her government pay (at least).

Actually, what's REALLY amazing is that the Chancellor of the University of Cailfornia at Irvine had not been aware that Chemerinsky is a target for criticism from conservatives. Does the good Chancellor live in a cave?

As I understand it, "intelligently" in reference to the mental state of one entering a plea does not mean doing something that makes sense, as Sen Spector seems to be implying. Rather, it is synonymous with "knowingly." That means that you are aware of your rights and the consequences of your actions.

Using Spector's disingenuous -- particularly for a former prosecutor -- interpretation is of course Craig's only chance at a successfully withdrawing his plea. Because using the actual standard would mean trying to convince a judge that a sitting US Senator and longtime congressman was utterly unaware of his constitutional right to counsel and trial, and that he had absolutely no idea that pleading guilty constituted an admission of the facts constituting the elements of the crime, and would result in actually being convicted of the crime to which he had pled.

Apparently, Craig now believes that admitting he is the dumbest bastard to ever hold federal office is better than admitting that he might have wanted a bit of sexual gratification from another man.

Then: We must invade Iraq to take away Saddam's WMD, which we know are specifically in the areas north, south, east and west of Baghdad, and because he assisted the hijackers who attacked us on 9/11.

Now: We invaded Iraq in order to free a noble people from the shackles of a brutal dictator, and are staying to help them on the road to achieving their divine right to democracy (which will inspire the other noble people of the mideast to assert their own divine right to democratic self-determination).

Of course, both statements are a load of crap, but Kerry's right: these guys do more goalpost movement than the grounds crew at a combined baseball/football stadium in September.

My god. If this woman knew how much most guys loathed the whole traditional "bachelor party" scene she'd actually feel sorry for the poor gal who has to tag along, instead of resenting her.

The bachelor party -- in its traditional stag party incarnation (like the one her husband is being forced to attend) -- is a contrived farce for most of the modern world. An anachronism that a handful of misogynists and misanthropes can't let go of; their one excuse from time to time to leer at nekkid ladies.

For myself and most men that I know, the "bachelor party" is now merely a night out for dinner and a few drinks with the boys without having to apply or pay for a "hall pass" from our loving wives or significant others. (For those men who insist that they always get to do whatever they want, whenever they want, their wives be damned: really?)

Frankly, were I to get invited to the kind of bachelor party this reader's husband is in for, I'd beg my wife to forbid me from going so I had a good excuse to skip it.