I agree that limitations on executive power have to come from Congress, and I'm sure GG does as well. And Justice Jackson surely did:

"But I have no illusion that any decision by this Court can keep power in the hands of Congress if it is not wise and timely in meeting its problems. A crisis that challenges the President equally, or perhaps primarily, challenges Congress. If not good law, there was worldly wisdom in the maxim attributed to Napoleon that 'The tools belong to the man who can use them.' We may say that power to legislate for emergencies belongs in the hands of Congress, but only Congress itself can prevent power from slipping through its fingers."

The Steel Seizure Case, 343 U.S. 579, 654 (1952)

This is, of course, exactly what Congress has done. They have refused to check the power of the Executive and as a result we are inching towards a dictatorship. Alarmist? Let's ask Justice Jackson:

"In view of the ease, expedition and safety with which Congress can grant and has granted large emergency powers, certainly ample to embrace this crisis, I am quite unimpressed with the argument that we should affirm possession of them without statute. Such power either has no beginning or it has no end. If it exists, it need submit to no legal restraint. I am not alarmed that it would plunge us straightway into dictatorship, but it is at least a step in that wrong direction."

Id. at 653.

But here's why your argument is ridiculous. Why do you think Congress is going to start doing its job now? Is Obama sending secret memos around Washington asking Congress to oppose him? The fact of the matter is the majority of Congress is not interested in taking a principled stand on any of this. They care about their careers and their pet projects, not separation of powers or the rule of law. And the Supreme Court, especially the Federalist Society appointees, believe in vast executive power. Even if the Court (as it is composed now) is determined to oppose Obama on particular issues, they will do it in such a way that executive power is not restricted.

Finally, to the person who said Obama is representing his clients. This is simply not true. A government lawyer's obligations are to uphold the Constitution and act in the best interests of the people of the United States. They owe no obligation of competent or zealous representation to former occupants of the White House.

@Jebbie: What a hilarious version of class warfare, too! "I have enough money to meet my needs, but if the government is going to take a higher percentage, say for healthcare or improving education, we are going to rise up!" What's he going to do, start bombinh homeless shelters?

@DcLaw: Eloquent.

In civil litigation, if side A accidentally gives side B something it didn't otherwise have to, such as work product (documents side A's lawyers prepared in anticipation of the case, for instance) or privileged information (records of communication between side A's clients and lawyers), it is side A's fault and side B is entitled to use the information. The client on side A can sue his attornies for malpractice if he loses the case as a result of this, although I don't know what that implies in this case, since the government made the mistake. If the two parties had submitted to discovery agreements, its possible the government could get the accidentally-disclosed material back and plaintiffs here couldn't raise it at trial, but generally once a document is out, even accidentally, it can be used at trial.

I'm sure a better explanation has been posted while I have been typing this, probably by one of our practicing attorneys. I am just a lowly student.

1. Assuming, arguendo, that Malkin has indeed been a victim of racism, that in no way implies that she cannot be racist herself. Its a ridiculous argument on its face. I have been robbed. That in no way precludes me from robbing someone in the future. I might think about how I felt when I was robbed, and that might give me pause before I rob somebody else, but that doesn't mean I am incapable of it (this is called reasoning by analogy, kids). And as our friend Greenwald has ably documented, the idea that x is wrong when it happens to me but ok when I do it to someone else is fairly common among the right-wing types.

2. Speaking of which, there is no better recruiting tool for the left than the right-wing posters who write letters on Salon. Please do not ban them, or try to minimize them in any way. In fact, Salon should consider a front page full of right-wing comments, so as many people as possible can be exposed to their pearls of wisdom.

Breaking Bad is a tremendous show. I was lucky enough to watch it from the first episode. Normally I will read spoilers even about movies and shows I plan to see, but I stopped reading this column to experience it all "cold," like I did for the first season.

Cranston is tremendous, plain and simple. Even if you find yourself not liking him, you feel for him, and you root for him. The scene from the first season where he kills the dealer (who would have certainly killed him had he not) is probably one of the most devastating things I have witnessed on film or TV, both because the show went to great lengths to humanize the victim and because you are aware that part of Walt is being destroyed as well. Even in quality TV and film, life is too often destroyed casually, and I appreciate this show taking the opposite approach. Its not a perfect show but its as good as anything else out there. Basically, watch it.

FWIW, Cranston seems to have a knack for dark shows. Malcolm in the Middle was often incredibly depressing (and purposefully so, I believe).