The Whole Delivery

With their aspersions and hypocrisy about the Bush Administration trying terrorists in civilian courts exposed, the next talking point being developed by the nutty fringe is one that requires to be put to bed as soon as possible. Because it will be regurgitated on and on by the idiot comedian channel. After Gingrich further sullied his already diminished self last night (Jon Stewart, why the hell do you continue having him on to lie right in your face?) by labeling Brit Richard Reid "an American", the new talking point to try and deny our nation at upholding to our Constitution was presented by another delusional nutcase. Monica Crowley somehow thought it was a great way to combat the continued momentum of why Mirandizing rights is the right and only way to go by uttering that military tribunals practiced by this country somehow have been born in recent times. Thankfully, Crooks and Liars' David Neiwert was on Crowley's usual insanity , and provides an importa...

Attorney General Eric holder, tired of the idiots that represent the idiot party right now, wrote a letter to their hapless Senate leader in response to their complaining about us trying to uphold to the values of our laws and Constitution. In a letter filled with a straight formal request to stop embarrassing the country, the most stringing point from Holder to McConnell was this: As to whether or not Abdulmutallab should have been allowed access to counsel, Holder offers a doozy: Some have argued that had Abdulmutallab been declared an enemy combatant, the government could have held him indefinitely without providing him access to an attorney. But the government's legal authority to do so is far from clear. In fact, when the Bush administration attempted to deny Jose Padilla access to an attorney, a federal judge in New York rejected that position, ruling that Padilla must be allowed to meet with his lawyer. Notably, the judge in that case was Michael Mukasey, my predecesso...

Dave Weigel The question from the caller: “I want to know if any of the governors are willing to invoke the 10th Amendment if the health care bill is passed.” Pawlenty’s answer, below the fold: Thank you for the question. It’s a great question. I don’t think the nation’s had a proper federalism debate since Ronald Reagan raised the issue regularly in the 1980s. And by federalism of course we mean the proper relationship between the federal government and the states, trained as a cornerstone around the 10th Amendment. I believe that amendment has been discounted to the point of making me very sad. Depending on what the federal government comes out with here, asserting the 10th Amendment might be viable option, but we don’t know the details. As one of the other callers said, we can’t really even get the president to outline what he does or doesn’t support in any detail. So we’ll have to see. I’d say that’s a possibility. You’re starting to see more governors, including me, and specifica...