J'accuse!
 

Newdow: Right but irritating? Wrong and irritating?

Clarke: Partisan hack inflating his book sales? The man with the goods?

Kerry: Whatever happened to him, anyway?

Surely we were discussing something else, too.

J'accuse!
 

So you're a romantic. My own vision of the future is Soylent Green crossed with Brazil. In your world, will there be rocket cars?

edit- last post on old thread is critically important to read.

J'accuse!
 

I understand from someone who has met him that Chada, of INS v. Chada,* is actually quite nice.

*You know, the legislative veto case.

J'accuse!
 

If you're going to talk about plastic surgery, take it to the FB.

Didn't see that you got that post in before I locked the thread -- sorry.

J'accuse!
 

Potentially outing myself, but a law professor of mine told a story about standing in line for a movie in New Haven. The person behind em heard em talking about the law and said, excuse me, are you a law professor? I'm Chadha.

J'accuse!
 

Mr. Lawrence, of Lawrence and Garner v. Texas enthusiastically waved at me (and several thousand other people) during the Pride parade last summer. He seemed nice enough.

J'accuse!
 

Ollie's Bar-B-Que is really good, Detroit Edison lightbulbs- less so.

J'accuse!
 

I've thought this for a long time. I first gave some thought to this just before Texas came out with its state pledge, which is remarkable in its consideration of just that:

"Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one and indivisible."

I remember thinking at the time that it was an interesting contrast.

Note that there is no mention of liberty and justice for all. It is Texas, after all.

J'accuse!
 

W?

J'accuse!
 

Not accurate, is it? I think Texas entered the Union with the right to subdivide into five states:

"New states, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said state of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said state, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution."

Joint Resolution of the Congress of the United States, March 1, 1845

J'accuse!
 

Why has Texas never acted on this right? You'd think the prospect of 8 additional senators would garner sizable support in the state legislature, at least a few of whom surely aspire to greater things than scurrying across state lines to prevent a quorum.

And if Texas won't act on it, can we give transfer it to California?

J'accuse!
 

No offense, but Ollie's BBQ kinda falls in the "bad plaintiff" column where I'm from.

I'll give you Lawrence and Chadha, but it's not a numerosity analysis. At the end of the day you're going to have to beat Miranda.

J'accuse!
 

Talk about a redistricting nightmare...

Of course, this is a good opportunity to divest ourselves of Dallas.

J'accuse!
 

More importantly, the rest of Texas can divest itself of Austin, rather than just splitting us into f-o-u-r congressional districts.

Bill Frist, off the deep end
 

• It is awesomely self-serving for Mr. Clarke to assert that the United States could have stopped terrorism if only the three Presidents he served had better listened to his advice....The only common denominator throughout these 10 years of unanswered attacks was Mr. Clarke himself, a consideration that is clearly driving his effort to point fingers and shift blame.
  
  ....Mr. President, I do not know if Mr. Clarke's motive for theses charges is partisan gain, personal profit, self promotion, or animus because of his failure to win a promotion in the Bush Administration....Mr. Clarke was clearly consumed by the desire to dodge any blame for the 9-11 attacks while at that same moment rescuers were still searching the rubble of the World Trade Center for survivors....A loyal Administration official?....If, in the summer of 2001, he saw the threat from al Qaeda as grave as he now says it was, and if he found the response of the Administration as inadequate as he now says it was, why did he wait until Sunday, March 21, 2004 to make his concerns known?
  
  ....Mr. President, if Mr. Clarke held his tongue because he was loyal, then shame on him for putting politics above principle. But if he has manufactured these charges for profit and political gain, he is a shame to this government.
  
  ....Mr. President, it is one thing for Mr. Clarke to dissemble in front of the media. But if he lied under oath to the United States Congress it is a far more serious matter....it is also clear that Mr. Clarke and his publishers adjusted the release date of his book in order to make maximum gain from the publicity around the 9-11 hearings....I find this to be an appalling act of profiteering, trading on his insider access to highly classified information and capitalizing upon the tragedy that befell this nation on September 11, 2001. Mr. Clarke must renounce any plan to personally profit from this book.
  
  ....In his appearance before the 9-11 Commission, Mr. Clarke's theatrical apology on behalf of the nation was not his right, his privilege or his responsibility. In my view it was not an act of humility, but an act of supreme arrogance and manipulation. Mr Clarke can and will answer for his own conduct but that is all.

This is so nauseating that I'm really just at a loss to respond.

eta: I'm quoting from this. Perhaps someone can explain to me how Clarke's comments in the off-the-record briefing are contradicted by what he's said more recently. As I read it, he's describing the same things. Decisions were being made, but slowly, and farther down the totem pole than he would have liked. When he briefed the press, he emphasized that something was being done. Now he's angry that it wasn't done faster.