Your understanding of prosecutorial discretion and how it interacts with the role of the president as chief executive is laughable. If you'd like a clue you can read my earlier post on this thread, but since you've supposedly been reading Greenwald for months and he's a better writer than me, I have to assume you're hopeless.

Article II:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

What is the CAT? Was the U.S. a state party to the CAT? Was it ratified by a subsequent act of Congress? Have the obligations of the CAT been codified into domestic law?

(Answers: A treaty, yes, yes, yes)

Are you being willfully fucking blind and obtuse?

(Answer: Maybe. Seriously, who can tell?)

Let's go to Article II:

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

Hey look, a specifically enumerated power of the president to grant reprieves and pardons! Where's the specifically enumerated power for the president to interfere in individual prosecutions? Are you conflating two completely different things in an attempt to obfuscate and confuse?

Are you incapable of holding these two concepts in mind?

1) The DOJ, headed by the Attorney General, should prosecute cases independent of political pressure; and

2) The president, as the chief executive, has the authority to dictate in general terms how the resources of DOJ should be expended.

Because it's really not that fucking hard. Regarding Morrison v. Olson, don't get me started. But two things, quick 1) Do you know the difference between dicta and a holding? and 2) Scalia wrote the dissenting opinion, not the majority.

It's easy to do when you tell people that what they already want to do is the right thing. Don't help strangers! Maximize your own wealth! You are better than anyone else! You are successful because of your hard work, others fail because they don't work hard enough! Don't help the failures or they will never learn to be successful! Instead, spend your money on whatever ridiculous bullshit makes you happy! And if those poor failures have children that starve to death or are denied access to the privileges you take for granted, well it's their failure parents' fault. If they're going to die they'd better do it--and decrease the surplus population!

I might even pay a tea-partier for one if he was selling em.

Ebert wrote quite a bit about this movie. If you haven't seen it and want to know some more, or have seen it and want to hear some smart thoughts, I would recommend his writing.

I don't think I could bring myself to watch it, but it certainly looks interesting.

I think the recognition among many liberals / progressives that she is an unmitigated trainwreck is precisely the reason they pay so much attention to her. What's good for Sarah Palin is good for the Democratic party.

That the season premiere of L&O this year was a rather passionate repudiation of torture as practiced by the American government, and at numerous times across its long run the show has been unafraid to put various right-wing factions in the villian role. One of the better episodes from way back had McCoy taking on the militia movement, for example. I haven't seen this episode so I can't comment on its quality, but it seems like this might just be an example of the Salonistas getting pissed that their orthodoxy is not sufficiently respected.

And yes, the issue of abortion is complicated and difficult to deal with. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an impediment to progress, whether you're a religious extremist or a "get-the-hell-out-of-my-uterus" slogan-yeller.

First off, you are absolutely correct that it is an insult to the professor, the school, and the students to even suggest that a the grades given in the class are in any way contingent on an "innocent" outcome. There are so many ethical and professional responsibility problems with that method of grading that I doubt any ABA-approved school would even consider it.

Also, I'm assuming the federal statute you reference is FERPA, which protects against the disclosure of private student records such as grades. Is that correct? I'm sure that there is a statutory exception for releasing student academic infomation in order to cooperate with an investigation, but this is just absurd. I would be surprised if a judge saw this as anything other than a punitive measure on the part of the prosecutors, and I hope they are dealt with most harshly.

I don't know why the news about Kos strikes me as even more tragic than the news about what Obama has been doing (probably cause I already knew about Obama's centrist streak). How the hell is it being "conservative" to point out that Obama is sabotaging the health reform outcome that progressives want? Are these people unable to comprehend the difference between good-faith criticism from the left and obstructionism from the right? And if so, why? Does the critical part of their brain really shut off when there's a (D) by their guy's name, or was their main problem with Bush's policies the (R) by his name? My brain hurts.