[Miss Marple]

So, is Ruch an expert on Constitutional law, arguing before the Supreme Court and legal precedents? I take it he has been consulting with his knee-jerk legal experts again and is on a rant.

Bush didn't have to file a brief at all. Rush is NOT a legal expert. I stand with the President on this.

[Wait4Truth]

The Bush-haters have arrived beginning with the one that started the thread.

[hchutch]

What was it David Frum has said? Something about "conservative elites constantly sniffing the air for signs of a sellout" or something like that? They're not the ones who have to get the votes to win an election. They're just behind some damn keyboard. They're not the ones confronting the real situations.

Putting out a press release or hiding behind some keyboard and doing a syndicated column is far different from actually having to run the country, and it's about time to call some of the folks who David Frum is talking about (we have a general idea of who they are - the ones who sniff around, claiming a sellout at every turn) out, and tell them to put up or shut up.

[G.Mason]

"Bush didn't have to file a brief at all. Rush is NOT a legal expert. I stand with the President on this."

Nor, apparently are the Republican judicial nominee's.

[MatthewViti]

Bush Bot

[fightinJAG]

Oh, Miss Marple, you thrill me with your winning logic.

Look, Rush often misses the nuances, especially in subjects that take great training such as constitutional law. The lawyers he consults are often knee-jerk.

Believe me, I are one (a constitutional lawyer) and not only is there a whole bunch of law going on in a case such as this, there are tactics and strategies that will not be apparent to the first-time reader, even a trained lawyer. (Yes, there are untrained lawyers.)

I haven't read the brief yet so won't comment on its merits. But I agree that this sounds like another instance in which conservatives may be overlooking the power of incrementalism in the law.

And one more thing about the Supreme Court: If you want to win, you do not necessarily go in there with both barrels blazing. It ain't that kind of place. If you put a bunch of red meat in your brief, the radicals will jump all over that so fast, THEY WON'T EVEN LISTEN OR GIVE WEIGHT TO THE TRUE ARGUMENTS.

The Supreme Court is steeped in the doctrine of stare decisis and the exalted role of the Court as over all the land.

The justices get spooked, particularly on a controversial issue and particularly regarding arguments presented by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, if arguments are not presented in a nuanced way.

But nuance often escapes the untrained reader. Hence the charge that a legal brief is "bad" because it does not corrollate with one's political brief.

[Guillermo]

I stand with the President on this.

LOL, is there anything you DON'T stand w/ him on???

[lawdude]

"Bush didn't have to file a brief at all. Rush is NOT a legal expert. I stand with the President on this."

I have not read the brief. BUT, if what Rush says is correct, the pres did go back on his statements. BTW MM, I betcha Rush has access to better, more informed Constitutional law experts than you or I.

I was a victim of quotas when I went to law school and it cost me a bundle. If you want details, I will be glad to provide info in private e-mails.

[joesbucks]

Maybe M. Thatcher can comment on what Rush's concern is. She should be in the loop.

[Rodney King]

I stand with the President on this.

Can you name one thing that you have ever not stood with the presdent on?