Well, at least a blog. And it includes a quote from Lucasfilms on the subject.
For a character who makes only a passing appearance in the original “Star Wars” trilogy, things are going swimmingly for Admiral Ackbar, a bit player from “Return of the Jedi.” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that the students of the […]
The SCOTUS blog is having some posts about the U.S. Supreme Court and race. One is a nice discussion of two decisions from the 19th Century limiting the scope of the Reconstruction Amendments by Robert Cottrol, a professor of law and history at George Washington University. It begins:
I was asked, everyone has been well-behaved with lots of opportunities for annoying responses, and so here’s one.
By the way, did we have a referendum on the health care bill? I don’t remember being asked when the American people “rejected” it.
The Motorhome Diaries folks have fired their next barrage against Jones County. First, from an article in the Laurel, Mississippi Leader-Call that sums up the situation:
The editorial page of the New York Times has apparently been thinking through its reaction to the recent OPR opinions as deliberately as I have (note the quote in the title). The lede sentence is haunting to me as a lawyer:
Is this really the state of ethics in the American legal profession? Government […]
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) is the leading case on presidential power in wartime, and specifically on the president’s authority with regard to congressional power when the nation was at war. Justice Black’s opinion frames the issue in those terms:
The opinions (there was a majority opinion, a dissent, and five opinions concurring in the majority) grappled in a serious way with the scope of presidential power in wartime (there are extensive quotes from the opinions at the bottom of the post to illustrate this point).
One of the most remarkable things about John Yoo’s opinions about torture and presidential power that he wrote while at the Justice Department was that they did not bother to discuss, distinguish, or even mention Youngstown. Brad DeLong has lead a major part of the charge against John Yoo, by demanding the administration at Berkeley consider whether Yoo was fit to continue as a law professor. DeLong argued that Yoo had so violated professional norms his tenure should be revoked; one point he has raised is about Yoo’s failure to even mention Youngstown in the torture memos.
Last year, Yoo did see fit to mention Youngstown in a Wall Street Journal op-ed about whether the president had the power to ignore legislation– in that instance, federal wiretapping statutes. He thought the Justice Department “absurd” to take the position that legislation like that limited presidential power, and jeered at citation to Youngstown— “Youngstown correctly found that the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the exclusive power to make law concerning labor disputes.”
It’s about labor disputes.
Not about the scope of presidential power in wartime.
I think what we have here is equivalent to a con law professor telling us that Brown is an education law case about pupil assignments, and I’m reminded of Justice Holmes’s remark in “The Path of the Law” that the color of the hat one wears when signing a contract is not relevant to questions about the nature of the contract being signed. It is untenable to say that the issue’s origin as a labor dispute– a threatened strike– means that the case did not deal with questions of presidential power in wartime.
So there it was, till yesterday. Yesterday, John Yoo, through counsel (Miguel A. Estrada and Scott P. Martin of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. Folks may remember the two year battle over Estrada’s nomination as a circuit judge during the Bush adminsistration) filed a brief in a case where Yoo was sued by Jose Padilla for facilitating the torture of Padilla through writing those torture memos. On pages 23 and 24 of the brief (which I am going to assume that Mr. Yoo, a lawyer, has read), there’s this about Youngstown:
What? No mention of labor law? Just something about Presidential power as against Congressional enactments? I think we can give Yoo and his lawyers two points here for mentioning the presidential versus congressional power issue, but what should we deduct for failing to mention the wartime context?
There are much harder gyrations politicians attempt to make– take, for instance, McCain’s current claim that he didn’t realize the Tarp money was going to banks (he said he was mislead by Bush’s secretary of treasury) and that Obama suspended his campaign, too– but the two Mississippi senators are in a small and exclusive […]
What remains of Wilson v. Scruggs is in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. As I’ve posted earlier, Wilson has settled with Scruggs and Langston but continues to pursue Patterson, Peters, and Balducci (the last filed a pleading admitting liability but asserting other defendants were primarily liable). The case is […]
78 queries. 1.560 seconds.