Author: Scott Lemieux
I have an article up at TAP about some of the implications of last week's Supreme Court landmark. One important thing is that progressives shouldn't cede the national security component.
Ogged, riffing on Adam Liptak's article about the United States as a (recent) outlier on free speech:It's dogma in the US that if you give up a strong commitment to.
Agreed (see also here.) I stopped taking Richardson's candidacy seriously when he endorsed a dissenter in Roe and Miranda (and the writer of the majority opinion in Bowers) as his.
If 2004 comes back, I'm sure he'll be very effective. And between him and Moises the Mets should have at least 20% of their remaining LF games covered.Actually, all snark.
Evaluating some arguments for and against Sebellius as a VP choice, Ezra discusses a strange argument I've always wondered about:Then, on the con side, we get an argument that's been.
Rick Sutcliffe.
Souter, concurring in Boumediene: It is in fact the very lapse of four years from the time Rasul put everyone on notice that habeas process was available to Guantanamo prisoners,.
[Nixon would] top just short of calling the President a liar on Vietnam, then add that he would not be speaking of the war during Johnson's "sensitive negotiations with Hanoi".