|
|
Convictions: Slate's blog on legal issues
Thursday, March 27, 2008 - Posts
-
Eric writes , "The question was whether The Times went about making its decision [to reveal the Bush administration's violations of FISA] in a responsible way." Marty and David 's responses (citing Eric Lichtblau's column ) have devastated any suggestion Read More...
-
If I can wade into the debate on the Times ' publication of the Risen & Lichtblau NSA wiretapping story, I think the Times acted relatively carefully but James Risen's subsequent solo book "State of War" was quite reckless. The original story by the Read More...
-
David , there was nothing "abstract" about what The Times was doing. Are you saying that any possible harm to national security was negligible, or irrelevant? I did not argue that The Times should not have disclosed the existence of the program, a question Read More...
-
Eric Posner claims not to be able to discern from from Eric Lichtblau's column just why the Times changed its mind between 2004 and 2005 about publishing the story revealing the Bush Administration's unlawful wiretapping program. What's the great mystery? Read More...
-
Perhaps I am tainted by having once been a journalist, but although Eric raises a host of interesting questions that could be plucked from a good Columbia School of Journalism class on reportorial ethics, all of which may be hard to answer in the abstract, Read More...
-
According to our colleagues at Trailhead the Clinton campaign has questioned whether Obama lied when he claimed to be a law professor at U of Chicago. Formally his position was Senior Lecturer. In a way this is almost too silly to merit a response: when Read More...
-
Elsewhere on Slate, Eric Lichtblau describes the " inside drama " behind The Times' wiretapping story, a drama in which our hero confronts the arrayed forces of the U.S. government, momentarily stumbles, picks himself up, brings the Bush administration Read More...
-
In an incredibly opaque speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce yesterday, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson implied that he would seek "the same type of regulation and supervision" for investment banks as that which exists for commercial banks. He made Read More...
-
Jack's got it right when he writes: " Don't assume that living constitutionalism only swings to the left. It doesn't." And that's a lesson that extends beyond the question of whether today, 217 years after ratification, the 2d Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Read More...
-
My endorsement of Senator Obama seems to have piqued some Republican and Catholic interest in the Senator, and whether as a consequence, I should be: (A.) tried by military commission or (B.) simply shot on the blogosphere of battle. All things considered, I guess I should just be happy to learn John McCain wants to shutter Gitmo, but in genuine respect of, and gratitude to, the many who have shared their own thoughts, here is a bit more explanation. Read More...
-
Two thoughts in response to Marty's provocative questions : First, I think having a relatively independent DNI probably is manageable constitutionally. We already have, after all, an FBI director who is appointed for a term of years that does not coincide Read More...
-
This new Gallup poll suggests that if, as Mr. Dooley says, the Supreme Court follows the election returns (or more correctly, national public opinion) it will hold that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected with militia service, Read More...
-
Last week Dahlia Litwick and Eric Posner asked an important question about my posts on living constitutionalism : If constitutional interpretation by judges responds to political and social mobilizations over time, why have judicial review at all? Why Read More...
-
Jack, to answer your questions , as pithily as possible, I understand judicial restraint as underenforcement of constitutional norms, not the position that there are few or no constitutional rights or only those constitutional rights that reflect my political Read More...
-
In the New York Times this week, Adam Liptak takes a long overdue and somewhat tepid look at the fuzzy math Justice Scalia used in his concurrence in Kansas v. Marsh when he concluded that "The rate at which innocent people are convicted of felonies is Read More...
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum What did you think of this article?
|
|
|