[MamaLucci]

FINALLY, someone is challenging "Judge" Napolitano on some of the BS he shovels on Fox News........a long time coming, IMHO.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Napolitano seems like a nice-enough guy, but I've always been put off by the pretentiousness involved in him always being addressed as 'Judge.' As the column demonstrates, he is nothing more than a former, relatively minor, state judge, and is anything but a legal scholar. This column is absolutely devastating to Napolitano's reputation. Fox can and should do better.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

Sometimes I agree with Napolitano. Other times I do not.

In any event, everytime he-or anyone else at FOX-refers to him as "Judge" I cringe.

If he's off the bench he should stop using the honorific when referring to himself. If he was still on the bench he shouldn't be shilling on TV.

[kc2theline]

Nice to get the full story instead of the talking head versions that opine about their "feelings". Thanks for sharing. Waiting on the retraction/correction....
Pigs on the wing.

[NonValueAdded]

Challenging? More than that! I'd say game, set, and match! Thanks for posting the article, MamaLucci.

[pissant]

Napolitano is the Wolf-Man. He has to shave his face prior to his (too) many appearances on Fox TV.

[montag813]

Of course, had Napolitano taken the few minutes necessary to read the indictment (which is freely available online), he might have learned that all of the conversations and actions that resulted in Stewart's conviction took place about two years or more before the post-9/11 regulation (which the, er, Judge, in any event, mischaracterizes). That is: before George W. Bush was president, before John Ashcroft was attorney general, and before 9/11 ever happened. This investigation was very ably conducted by, and took place under the auspices of incontestably proper regulations imposed by, the Clinton Justice Department.

Napolitano shuld be immediately fired by the FoxNews Channel for this fraudulent opinion piece.

[SoFloFreeper]

Of course, had Napolitano taken the few minutes necessary to read the indictment (which is freely available online), he might have learned that all of the conversations and actions that resulted in Stewart's conviction took place about two years or more before the post-9/11 regulation (which the, er, Judge, in any event, mischaracterizes). That is: before George W. Bush was president, before John Ashcroft was attorney general, and before 9/11 ever happened.

I've not been impressed with Judge Andrew Napolitano...finally, hopefully, someone with some power at Fox News will let his contract run out and get someone else to be the pundit for legal issues. Mark Levin, for instance?

[DManA]

Completely OT but Napolitano has the strangest hair line. Comes down within an inch of his eyebrows.

[Tacis]

It may not be apparent from the coverage, even in the ultra-left wing, old-timey rags, but the old school New York commies, socialists and anti-Americans are going bananas over Lynn Stewart's conviction. She is one of the ultra-left wing icons, almost of the stature that Joe Stalin used to seek her guidance, and the commies are outraged that she finally got caught. If we can put her away for 25 years, the country will be a better place.

[drt1]

I agree. Napolitano, while an entertaining and amiable presence on Fox, is someone I used to look forward to listening to - That is until he started to spout some of the gibberish the article refers to.

His unstinting defense of the chaos unleashed by the misapplication and misuse of the rights conferred under the First Amendment and his railings against the imposition of reasonable (And, IMO, very necessary) restrictions on the ability dangerous convicted Felons to communicate with the outside world are, at the least, irresponsible.

[popdonnelly]

An attorney is not required to carry messages for their client. When an attorney becomes a participant in a criminal enterprise, they should be prosecuted.

[Real Cynic No More]

I kind of like the 'judge'. In this case, however, he's out of his realm of 'education, knowledge, and experience', i.e., he's practicing outside of his field, stretching his credentials. If I did that as an engineer, offered public opinions on engineering issues outside my area of expertise, I would be subject to censure and fine.

[Alberta's Child]

Let's be brutally honest about Fox News here. They have a reputation for covering stories and hosting guests that the left-wing media shy away from, but the quality of their work is often shoddy at best -- and they are often prone to the kind of half-@ssed sensationalist "journalism" described in this article.

Heck, I'd love to say that I even care about it -- but I have steadfastly refused to watch Fox since the day they hired Geraldo Rivera Jerry Rivers.

[Akira]

I read that this morning, what a smackdown.

Napolitano has a book to sell, so he's very quick to judge anything and everything as an assault on the Constitution. I keep waiting for him to declare E.D. Hill's hair unconstitutional. Heck, I might even support that one...

[italianquaker]

I said 2 weeks ago he really showed himself to be an a-s
with that article.
Traffic court judge maybe

[Blumtoon]

Thanks for this post! I read Napalitano's Lynne Stewart "oped" last week and even my slow brain was wondering how John Ashcroft could have violated so many rights when the blind shiek's trial was over years before Ashcroft was AG.

I know nothing about legal issues but everytime I hear Napolitano I get the feeling he's an ignorant windbag.It's so great to have my gut feeling confirmed by genuine smart guy Andrew McCArthy!

[Jokelahoma]

Any bests as to how long it tkes for Bill O'MeMeMe! to find a reason to make some snarky comments about McCarthy? O'BuyMyStuff and Napolitano are buds, and Mr. "Who's Looking To Get Money From You" will jump to defend Napolitano if it means he'll need to find another guest host for his radio program.

[PogySailor]

Of course, had Napolitano taken the few minutes necessary to read the indictment (which is freely available online), he might have learned that all of the conversations and actions that resulted in Stewart's conviction took place about two years or more before the post-9/11 regulation (which the, er, Judge, in any event, mischaracterizes). That is: before George W. Bush was president, before John Ashcroft was attorney general, and before 9/11 ever happened. This investigation was very ably conducted by, and took place under the auspices of incontestably proper regulations imposed by, the Clinton Justice Department.

SMACK! I've found myself wanting to throw a sock at the TV many times when "Judge" Napolitano was bloviating about some constitutional issue. Good to see Mr. McCarthy take him to the woodshed.

[PatriotGirl827]

I am just tired of "Judge" Napolitano bashing John Ashcroft. Every chance he gets.

[CHARLITE]

"The Times ought to be embarrassed. Fox News ought to be more embarrassed."

Good for Andrew McCarthy. It's about time that a seasoned journalist took "the Judge-at-Fox" to task. I've consistently disagreed with this judge's interpretations on legal matters. In my opinion, he really isn't all that bright, and as this article says, he is an embarrassment to Fox News. "Senior Judicial Analyst," - my eye. He should be let go. He is actually so off the mark, that he's somewhat comical. I feel like muttering, "Here come da judge" every time he appears on any of the many shows at Fox where they showcase this inferior legal mind.

As some of you have pointed out, he is affable enough, but he's a cocky little fellow who thinks he's "somethin' else" in the lofty pantheon of legal minds! He exudes an aura of oddly amiable, avuncular omniscience with respect to the law, when his views are based upon insufficient familiarity with their complexities, or even their basic foundation. Some retooling is needed over at Fox.

I say: "Let's draft Mark Levin!" I'm all for that!

Char :)