I used to agree with that assumption, but on a recent pilgrimage to Monticello, I could swear I heard a distinct whirring sound as I passed the obelisk marking Jefferson’s grave on my ascent to the main house.

Nuclear arms in the Middle East
The U.S. is attacking the Iraqis
The Israelis are mad at the Lebanese
And Cheney does whatever he please
Looks like another threat to world peace
For the envoy….

* i.e. respect for law, comity, leaving political decisions to the political process,”

If in the case of Bush v. Gore you mean yielding to congress and the 12th amendment; I agree.

“stare decisis,”

Buck v. Bell is still good law?

“respect for the voters, the right to to vote, fairness in elections, jurisprudence being above politics, Justices more concerned with the law than book sales and public celebrity, decisions with more consensus that a 4-3 split, courageous leaders and jurists, and last, but not least, our liberal democracy.”

Democracy’s got nothing to do with this one; it was all about that lil ole guarantee contained within Article IV.

Regards,

Bob

That’s a long list of crap! (Just saying before someone else does.) These are scary times.

Jill

“Send lawyers, guns and money for the s*$t has hit the fan.”

Just get over it* will you.

* i.e. respect for law, comity, leaving political decisions to the political process, stare decisis, respect for the voters, the right to to vote, fairness in elections, jurisprudence being above politics, Justices more concerned with the law than book sales and public celebrity, decisions with more consensus that a 4-3 split, courageous leaders and jurists, and last, but not least, our liberal democracy. I feel like Cicero before the fall of the Republic!

But that’s just me.

Regards,

Bob

P.S.

Professor Turley,

In case you catch this post, I caught the end of your interview on Dan Abrams regarding Scalia’s comments on the actions of he and his cadre during the 2000 presidential election.

I noticed that you mentioned something about standing before going on to say how frustrated you were about the court claiming the case could never be used as precedent.

I was wondering if you were aware of the consequences of the case itself simply in terms of justiciability and the law of contradiction.

I too despise the use of jailhouse snitches with nothing to lose and everything to gain by cooperating –falsely or otherwise. Not so long ago, we disqualified felons from testimony due to the supposition that anything they had to say was per se perjurious. That was too extreme, but I think making the entire criminal record of the snitch available to the jury might be a step in the right direction. I also think that videotaping the snitch’s plea negotiation session (we do it for defendants’ confessions) for the jury’s review would be eye-opening as well.