Request for lawyers to surge to Iraq (WSJ Law Blog). I like how the way to find the job posting is search for “rule of law.”
FISA news round up (EFF).
More on the calls to fire John Yoo (Law.com). I agree with this, from the Dean of the Berkeley law school:
“Assuming one believes as I do that Professor Yoo offered bad ideas and even worse advice during his government service, that judgment alone would not warrant dismissal or even a potentially chilling inquiry[.]“
Now, this is a sad example of lawyering. A science blogger, blogging on the lack of any evidence, beside anecdotal, of a link between autism and vaccinations, is the target of a far-reaching subpoena. She has no link to the trial, so it seems to be petty intimidation.
Judge, Lawyers debate tort reform in Texas (The Southeast Texas Record, via TortsProf Blog). The judge in question makes the point, that I’ve thrown out on occasion, that rule of law is crucial to a free market economy, and that some tort reform partisans want some parties to be unaccountable before the law.
Posted in
Law Tags:
FISA,
Freedom of Speech,
Lawyers Amok,
Misc.,
Tort Reform
. . . arguing that extending the statute of limitations in some cases is wrong, whereas granting retroactive immunity is just great. But that’s just what the American Enterprise Institute is advocating, that Congress should only retroactively meddle when they are protecting those who assist the government. It should come as no surprise that the extended statute of limitations would help out harmed individuals, whereas retroactive immunity would help out corporations that broke the law.
I have no opinion with regards to extending statutes of limitations, the tension between the needs of harmed individuals and the rule of law is not something that I can do away with easily. But the FISA controversy is another matter entirely.
The AEI says the issue is all about expectations, and sums the situation up in a quote from some former intelligence officials:
For hundreds of years our legal system has operated under the premise that, in a public emergency, we want private citizens to respond to the government’s call for help unless the citizen knows for sure that the government is acting illegally. If Congress does not act now, it would be basically saying that private citizens should only help when they are absolutely certain that all the government’s actions are legal.
That is exactly what Congress should be saying. It should be saying that the law is the responsibility of every American, and the government’s request for action does not excuse people from that responsibility. “If the president orders it, it’s not illegal” should not be the mantra of the whole of America.
Posted in
Law,
Ramblings Tags:
FISA,
Hypocrisy
