[link]

OK, you all know that I'm probably one of the top people to be completely and utterly unexcited, I daresay maybe even severly disgruntled, over the possibility of snow this wekend. But Our worst fears realized ??

Someone must be really bored.

they have the right to use them even if Congress makes it a crime to do so or the courts rule that doing so is illegal.

This strikes me as alarmist OTT. I mean, Alberto Gonzales can say that this is so, but then the Supreme Court will call up its Marbury v. Madison hit squad and beat the everliving crap outta him.

Even people who agree on the issues with a guy won't let him get away with a gigantic land-grab. Not when it's their land he is grabbing.

I can totally imagine somebody saying this. Even in Hebrew, because we use the English words for "shell" and "script".

This reminds me -- in class yesterday, the professor was saying there's a joke in the Latin American NGO world that no wonder they can't figure out accountability, because there isn't even a word for it in Spanish. Then he said they do have one now -- accountability. (Say it in Spanish.) Heh.

Our worst fears realized ??

Ha! I kind of love it when meteorologists go nuts.

Hypothetically, what happens if the Supreme Court says that Bush can't do something but Bush still says he can and goes on doing it and Congress refuses to impeach him?

There was once where the Supreme Court itself convicted someone of contempt of court and sentenced him to jail time. The only time in our nation's history where the Supreme Court held its own criminal trial.

Ha! I kind of love it when meteorologists go nuts.

During the long, dragged-out end to hurricane season, a couple of forecasters at NOAA were getting downright punchy and mocking in their reports. It was quite amusing.

During the long, dragged-out end to hurricane season, a couple of forecasters at NOAA were getting downright punchy and mocking in their reports. It was quite amusing.

David Letterman was once a weatherman. He once predicted "hail the size of canned hams."

Hypothetically, what happens if the Supreme Court says that Bush can't do something but Bush still says he can and goes on doing it and Congress refuses to impeach him?

This happened, in the 19th Century, over the eviction of the Cherokee from Georgia. Andrew Jackson was the presidential villain in that case, but it was more of a "You want me to do what? Oh, whoops, I forgot to do it." rather than a "You want me to stop doing what?"

Also, there was a lot of financial interest in screwing over the Cherokee. Money can waive a lot of principles, as Congress has wont to know.

But this case has one exec branch antagonizing both of the other branches. They'll gang up on him and suddenly the Department of Health and Human Services will be a function of the federal court system.

I think the big danger here is setting a precedent for the ability of the executive to ignore laws during a self-declared war on a noun. When does the war end? Can a future president ignore the rule of law because there is a war on drugs, or war on half-animal hybrids?

The war on drugs works about like the war on terror,(/David Simon likes carrots)