This is a nice little bit. Not perfect, but pretty much on the mark.

stopcox.org

Citing privacy and precedent, the Bush administration indicated Sunday it does not intend to release all memos and other documents written by Supreme Court nominee John Roberts when he worked for two Republican presidents.

I think I called this one. I would also agree with Thompson's position were it not for one problem, Robert's client is the government. Absent a legitimate security concern, it should be part of the public record.

White House Won't Show All Roberts Papers - Yahoo! News

Democratic Sen.
John Kerry urged the White House on Friday to release "in their entirety" all documents and memos from Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' tenure in two Republican administrations.

"We cannot do our duty if either Judge Roberts or the Bush administration hides elements of his professional record,"

Which of course the White House won't do. Not because there would be anything particularly damning in the records, simply because they don't release anything, unless it's something to try to torpedo someone who isn't onboard with them.

Kerry Seeks Release of Roberts' Documents - Yahoo! News

Bush said in June 2004 that he would fire anyone in his administration shown to have leaked information that exposed the identity of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. On Monday, however, he added the qualifier that it would have be shown that a crime was committed.

So now you need to have done something more than be unethical and harmful to the nation, you need to have done so criminally? I suppose that's fair, since holding by the earlier standard the changes in White House appointee payroll would have made a significant dent in the deficit...

Bush: Any Criminals in Leak to Be Fired

He was on 2004 presidential nominee
John Kerry's short list of potential running mates, and after the election, he was urged by some to run for chairman of the
Democratic National Committee, a position now held by
Howard Dean.

This is both an interesting and troubling move for the Democrats. If Dean and Vilsack work well together, they might be able to put Dean's anger together with Vilsack's comment that, "It's not enough to be angry," and move forward. If they don't work well together, it's four more years that the Democrats don't learn the power of anger.

Iowa Governor to Head Leadership Council

More fun from the government. The White House press corp rips poor little Scotty McClellan a new ass for them closing ranks on Rove.

IFILM - Viral Videos: White House Press Corps Unleashed!

This is one pissed off scotsman. I'm just sad we don't get to see the look on Norm Coleman's face as he gets steamrollered by him.

IFILM - Viral Videos: George Galloway vs. Senate Subcommittee

In 2003, McClellan said it was "totally ridiculous" to suggest that Rove played any role in the leak of CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity. He also said Bush has insisted that his staffers cooperate with the investigation by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, and that anyone responsible would be fired.

Well let's see. They lied about the WMD's, the links between Saddam (yes a total bastard) and Al-Qaeda (why is it only arab names that don't follow the "qu" rule? Well and Qantas, but they always were weird) they lied about who cashes in on the tax cuts and they don't seem to understand that a rising tide floating boats pretty much drowns everyone who doesn't have one.

I suppose it's only fair that they'd lie about actually doing something about the guy who leaked a CIA operative to the Angel of Darkness. It's not like it'd be a change. A change would actually be hanging him out to dry. But when you look at the most dishonest administration it's been my displeasure to live through, what else can I expect?

CNN.com - White House clams up on CIA leak - Jul 12, 2005

In the two years since that hearing, the court has only made his point stronger. In case after case, the court--with seven of nine justices appointed by Republican presidents--has confounded and disappointed conservatives. It has refused to abandon sweeping constitutional rulings of previous courts and, in some cases, it has extended them.

What this little article actually notes is that the Rehnquist court has been less "activist" than expected. It has declined to overturn past decisions.

When I was taking law 20 years ago, the court had Brennen, and Marshall, both decidedly liberal, and Warren Burger, who on this court I guess the writer of this article would call, based on the way this article is written, moderate/liberal. Calling this court liberal would be completely wrong. Comparing any member of the current court to past liberal giants Brennan or Marshall, there is not a "liberal" on the bench.

A better way to describe the makeup might be-

liberal- Breyer, Ginsberg
moderate- Stevens, O'Connor (and only because of the makeup of the rest of the group)
independant- Souter, Kennedy
conservative- Rehnquist
conservative activist- Scalia, Thomas

The 1987 court was-
liberal- Brennan, Marshall
moderate- White, Powell
independant- Blackmun, Stevens
conservative- O'Connor, Rehnquist
conservative activist- (even then) Scalia.

That O'Connor is now considered among the moderates does not mean that she has shifted that way, but that the court itself has shifted enough to the right to make her one.

I never thought I'd say this, but I hope Rehnquist continues to hold out. A court with multiple representatives from the current know-nothing branch of the Republican party would be a disaster.

Court choices unpredictable

I'm not sure who they go after next, is there anyone left?

Republicans vs the Red Cross