PROFOUND LEGAL COMMITMENTS THAT HAPPEN TO MIRROR THE GOP PLATFORM. I'm working on a piece about Jan Crawford Greenburg's new book, so I was interested in this take by John O. McGinnis. I agree that it's a good book, although obviously to me her credulous acceptance of self-serving arguments made by conservatives is more a bug than a feature.
JUDICIAL CONSERVATISM AND LEGAL INDETERMINACY. I'm a little puzzled by thisSasha Volokh post, in which he cites an article by Mike Seidman pointing out that the indeterminate nature of legal materials has produced conservative results as the federal courts have become dominated by Republican appointments and then uses it as a "gotcha" against CLS scholars, warning them that "progressives who, in the name of indeterminacy, try to undermine rule-of-law norms, will find this biting them back in the end." If Volokh thinks that this would be remotely surprising to the crits, however, he doesn't understand their
THE CENTRAL PROBLEM OF PURGEGATE. As the story expands, it's worth returning to this post by Josh Marshall, which in addressing the inevitable tu quoque rejoinders lays out the central problem with this particular series of firings. Presidents are, of course, entitled to set law enforcement priorities, and Bush may fire U.S. Attorneys for reasons that I would consider substantively wrong but not illegitimate, such as failing to enforce immigration laws effectively enough or refusing to seek the death penalty in all circumstances. (If you disagree, would you also believe that it's illegitimate for a Democratic President to fire a U.S.
JONAH GOLDBERG IS MAKING SENSE. No, really! OK, there are some details that are problematic -- I'm not sure what campaign finance reform has to do with this, and George Bush was hardly less prone to claiming to transcend partisan conflict than Hillary Clinton -- but the more that the argument that "democracy is about disagreement, and you can't have the former without the latter" appears in our op-ed pages, the better. There's no stupider genre of op-eds than the Broderesque "all political problems and our horrible partisanship could be solved if we could just agree that I'm right about everything" routine.
THE TROJAN HOLOCAUST. Like Matt, I wholeheartedly agree that pro-lifers should be more explicit about the extent to which pro-life arguments tend to be embedded within (and derived from) reactionary conceptions of sexuality. Someone taking this advice has been Zell Miller, who recently opined that America has too few children because of "the brutal truth that no one dares to mention: We�re too few because too many of our babies have been killed. Over 45 million since Roe v.