Author: Scott Lemieux
Regular readers of Lawyers, Guns & Money (if any) will know that I am often puzzled by those who claim that reactionary culutral countermobilization is primarily driven by the fact.
Susie at Suburban Guerilla notes this Alan Dershowitz post about William Rehnquist, which (among other things, some of which are better substantiated than others) discusses the infamous memo Rehnquist wrote.
Hitchens:I've obviously missed my vocation as a cartoonist: By Sunday I had lost count of the number of them who all seemed to know that, if Saddam Hussein was still.
Since there seems to be some confusion in the comments here I'm guessing there may be a more general misunderstanding of this point. The Chief Justice is a separate appointment,.
Since I've already discussed Rehnquist's Brown memo, I'll leave that mostly for later. Since it is (for good reason) the primary focus of many postmortems, we shouldn't forget that Rehnquist's.
One of the difficulties that those of us who claim that courts and legislatures are not always engaged in a zero-sum struggle for power have is in making the empirical.
While it is well-known that Michael Brown was a hack political appointee utterly lacking in relevant experience, I did not know that he does not even seem to have been.
Matt makes good points about Jon Chait's failed attempt to defend his initial support for the Iraq war. I have a couple whacks of my own. Perhaps the most problematic.