The most remote place on earth. Add Wi-Fi, and it looks like a nice vacation spot.
Bruce Ackerman makes the case for impeaching federal judge Jay Bybee, John Yoo’s old boss at OLC. I’m in favor. The most insulting thing about Bybee and Yoo is not just that they shat on the Constitution while at OLC, but that Bybee now sits as a federal appellate judge, where he gets to determine what is and isn’t constitutional, while Yoo actually teaches constitutional law at Berkeley.
Cool video of a water drop hitting fine sand.
YouTube is going to automate its process of finding copyrighted music used in the audio of uploaded videos, meaning many videos may just automatically go silent. Looks like they’ve already done it to the famous Rickroll video.
Top Bush Gitmo official utters the t-word.
Cult of the Presidency watch. Also, ew.
Finally…
This entry was posted
on Thursday, January 15th, 2009 at 1:11 pm by Radley Balko
and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
TheAgitator.com
ARRRGGGHHH!!!
Now I have a mental picture of a fat Ann Coulter using the Obama toy…You’re evil, Radley…pure, concentrated, Time Bandit evil…
now i gotta drink some bleach!
The “water drop” video is really cool, but I don’t think it’s actually a drop of water.
Thak you, Radley, for not only knowing the past tense of “shit” but using it correctly. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve read articles where the present tense was used in place of the past tense and shit.
I love the face of the pundit instructor…he just couldn’t comprehend how they were messing with him. Priceless and poignant.
And now that I’ve clicked through the rest of those…someone PLEASE tell me that toy is a joke?
“The most insulting thing about Bybee and Yoo is not just that they shat on the Constitution while at OLC, but that Bybee now sits as a federal appellate judge, where he gets to determine what is and isn’t constitutional, while Yoo actually teaches constitutional law at Berkeley.”
The Constitution consists of words whose meanings must be interpreted. Someone must do the interpreting. The interpreters are chosen from the ruling class.
There are those who are upset that their interpretation of the Constitution does not hold sway. That is the price of supporting the U.S. Constitution — by upholding its validity, logically one must accept the ruling class’ prevailing interpretation of it.
In accepting that one’s candidate may lose an election, the individual who supports voting must accept as valid the actions of the opposing candidate once in office (assuming the State upholds their actions as lawfu). It’s about the democratic process, right?
By hacking at the branches, one condemns oneself to a life resembling a Greek myth on the order of Prometheus or Sisyphus.
Try striking the root.
http://www.strike-the-root.org
Regarding YouTube/copyrighted stuff…without getting into a philosophical debate over copyrights, how they work, how they should work, etc (for instance, I’d personally consider it fair use to copy something that you can’t purchase, e.g, it’s out of print)(and especially if fidelity loss is part of the process), I figure some may not know about http://keepvid.com/ – and may want to get to usin’ it….
You Tube: I’m not sure how, I guess it was subsrcibing to the Ukelele Orchestra of Great Britain, but I’m signed up as an English user (there are lots of those pesky letter ‘u’ everywhere). The ‘Rickroll’ video plays just fine, sound and all, FWIW.
I would argue that since he is out of the office in which the alleged impeachable offense occurred, that he can not be impeached. I would also argue that in his current position, he can not be impeached on alleged offenses that happened in his prior office.
The pussification of youtube continues. Is anyone else starting to classify YT as MSM?
My guess is that Cutey Kouric was the first in line for the BO toy. Probably bought three and got on the stand-by list for the blow up doll.
If YouTube just replaces copyrighted sound with yakity-sax, it wouldn’t be that bad.
Ackerman’s argument misses entirely the point (also made by #10) that Judge Bybee was not a judge at the time of the alleged misconduct that would have to be proven. There is a good argument, if he had lied to the Senate, that he could be impeached for lying to them. But since he just refused to talk and the Senate seemed to think that was okay, it’s hard to argue that he can be impeached for something the Senate didn’t think was a problem to begin with.
The Senate should have exercised the advise and consent role more thoroughly and told Bybee that he was entitled to claim attorney-client privilege, but unless the President waived that and permitted him to answer the questions, he was not going to receive the Senate’s approval.
Given that the Senate has managed over the years not to approve any number of people who were otherwise qualified for far lesser reasons it seems they already whiffed on their shot at Bybee.
That’s an odd criticism, given that Ackerman failed to refute the most obvious counter-argument to his position in the piece. I find it even weirder that he thinks that a 35-year old lawyer should get a pass for shoddy legal work. Those opinions were not good, and I know plenty of 25-year old lawyers who could have done better.
I don’t know a lot about how the OLC is set up, but it seems that is a way for Ackerman to pin more on Bybee than he may be responsible for. If Bybee trusted his subordinates to do good work (and Yoo had very good credentials), then it seems Bybee is a lot less culpable than Ackerman believes. Does anyone know whether Bybee would have had to sign off on the memos?
As for Yoo teaching the first-year Con Law course, you’re teaching the cases, not whatever bizarre theories you might have. The reading of the Court’s cases is fairly uncontroversial (though there is obvious disagreement on whether they are right). Almost everyone agrees on what the Court has said, so his teaching that is not a problem.
Bybee’s determining what is and isn’t constitutional is also not likely to cause that much harm. In the first place, he’d have to get at least one other Judge to agree with him (in a 3-judge panel). In the second, there are still en banc hearings and Supreme Court appeals above him if he did screw something up. And again, even Ackerman admits that he has no idea what Bybee’s role was. For all we know, Yoo was shooting memos straight out without Ackerman’s approval (or even knowledge). Once the folks outside of OLC knew who their man was, why would they go anywhere else?
Man, I tried a little videoblogging a few months ago, and I’m so bad on video that I seriously think the media training guy could improve my performance. Although, checking their website, it looks like Media Training Worldwide only offers seminars in New York. And the two-day course costs $2000.
Oh, the irony. The article about Rick Astley’s video being muted on Youtube was a Rickroll.
Radley I am curious what you think about the SCOTUS decision that says evidence negligently obtained is still admissable?
Also haven’t seen any articles about the officer killed serving a warrant here in Dallas — worth looking into this one, a lot of discrepancies on both sides. Looks like the guy (arrested on capital murder charge) is probably guilty but that the police procedures also were not followed. Dep’t originally said they announced themselves as someone other than police, then changed their story a bit later saying they did in fact announce themselves.
There are those who are upset that their interpretation of the Constitution does not hold sway. That is the price of supporting the U.S. Constitution — by upholding its validity, logically one must accept the ruling class’ prevailing interpretation of it.
Q: How many legs does a horse have if five Supreme Court justices call a tail a “leg”?
A: Four.
If there are multiple reasonable, or even remotely-plausibly-reasonable interpretations of a law, and the Supreme Court picks one, its decision should be respected whether or not its selection is the most reasonable.
On the other hand, if the Supreme Court issues a decision which is clearly inconsistent with what the text of the Constitution actually says, it is the right and duty of all citizens to recognize such a decision as illegitimate. To do otherwise would be to regard judicial edicts as superior to the Constitution, which would contravene the Constitution’s explicit statement that nothing is superior to it.
Too many people seem to think that the job of a judge is to make things be either constitutional or unconstitutional. It is not. If something is unconstitutional, it is not a judge that makes it so. It is the Constitution itself. Judges may sometimes help clarify issues that are somewhat obscure, but the people need to recognize for themselves the issues that are clear.
One of the standard rules of statutory construction is that judges are supposed to construe a statute such that it does not violate the constitution, if such a construction is possible. In a sense, the judge does determine the constitutionality of the statute in that case, generally by adopting a narrow reading of the statute.
This evidences (a) the presumption that the legislature would not enact an unconstitutional statute; and (b) the principle that statutes should be strictly construed against the government. Of course, if there is no possible way to read a statute as constitutional, the judge is obligated to rule it unconstitutional.
“If there are multiple reasonable, or even remotely-plausibly-reasonable interpretations of a law, and the Supreme Court picks one, its decision should be respected whether or not its selection is the most reasonable.
On the other hand, if the Supreme Court issues a decision which is clearly inconsistent with what the text of the Constitution actually says, it is the right and duty of all citizens to recognize such a decision as illegitimate. To do otherwise would be to regard judicial edicts as superior to the Constitution, which would contravene the Constitution’s explicit statement that nothing is superior to it.”
Supercat, I’m sorry to write this, but everything you wrote is wrong.
Words are not self-interpreting. There are no objective definitions in human relations. There is only power. The subjective opinions of the powerful are the law. Nothing else.
The U.S. Constitution is undefined as far as you are concerned. You have no control over the opinions of the powerful.
The powerful have control over you. This is the source of your cognitive dissonance. You hold on to the brainwashing they installed in you in public school.
You still have some measure of control, though. Exercise it.