Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

Independent Commissions Come In Many Flavors

Posted on February 1, 2004 by Michael Froomkin

Bush to Seek Intelligence Failures Probe. AP reports that faced with pressure from his own party, Bush is going to try to head off a real independent commission with statutory oomph by setting up his own via executive order.

Things to look out for:

  • Terms of reference. Is the mandate stacked to pin blame on the CIA's conclusions, or do the terms of reference allow the commission to include what almost every report suggests was a major part of the problem—the rogue intelligence-massaging operation run out of the Vice President's office, with the connivance of the civilians in the Pentagon.
  • Powers. Will it have subpoena power? The power to get what it needs regardless of classification level?
  • Timing. Is the commission going to conveniently report after the election?
  • Membership. Is it bi-partisan? Is the chair or co-chairs really independent of the White House and the Republican establishment (e.g. NOT Henry Kissinger, but maybe someone like Richard Clarke)?
  • Staffing. Do Democrats get to have a say in hiring the staff or are they just window-dressing?
  • Track Record/Baggage. To the extent that there are politicians rather than technocrats, how many opposed the war?
  • Public Report Details. How much control does the White House get over the final report? Assuming there will be both public and classified versions, is there a mechanism by which the Commission can contest decisions to keep certain things classified?
  • Spin Preservation. Does the White House get to look at a draft report and append its reply? How much more warning does the White House get about the contents/final draft than Clinton got from Ken Starr?

I bet I know the answer to most of these questions already….

Posted in National Security | 1 Comment

Being Funny is Hard Work

Posted on January 31, 2004 by Michael Froomkin

I think there is something wrong about these bonding rituals in which Presdients go to formal dinners and make off-the-record funny speeches to white house correspondents and others. It's not just the elitism, although that's part of it. It feeds the press's idea of its self-importance.

That said, who knew how much work it can take to get a President to be funny in the Washington-approved way.

Posted in Politics: US | Comments Off on Being Funny is Hard Work

Scalia Recusal Issue (cont)

Posted on January 30, 2004 by Michael Froomkin

Much has been made of the Scalia line quoted in the Los Angeles Times that, “I do not think my impartiality could reasonably be questioned.” As I've already stated, I disagree. What's more important, however, is just how this comment of Scalia's was inappropriate and damaging. I'll set out some reasons below. But first, some detours.

The full text of Chief Justice Rehnquist's Jan. 26, 2004 short letter to Sen. Patrick Leahy clears up an ambiguity caused by the press reports. Recall that the Chief Justice was quoted as saying that,

“Anyone at all is free to criticize the action of a justice—as to recusal or as to the merits—after the case has been decided. But I think that any suggestion by you or Senator Lieberman as to why a justice should recuse himself in a pending case is ill-considered.”

On its face, this is a really, really odd claim.

Continue reading →

Posted in Law: Ethics | 3 Comments

Biting Satire: The GW Bush C.V.

Posted on January 30, 2004 by Michael Froomkin

This Bush Resume thing is really making the rounds of the Internet. In addition to getting it by email, a quick Google suggests that different versions are poppping up all over.

Update (2/3). Here's a version with hyperlinks to the sources.

Continue reading →

Posted in Politics: US | 7 Comments

More style sheet weirdness

Posted on January 29, 2004 by Michael Froomkin

This time I didn't change the style sheet. I just updated my copy of IE. And now, at least under win xp, the right column is off center and renders partly under the center. It looks fine in Mozilla. Data points from the Mac crowd or other browsers most welcome (or even IE under other OS's).

There may be a slight delay in fixing this one—both because I can't figure out what's causing it, and becasue my DSL connection is out at home. We're knocking down the back part of the house to rebuild it, bigger and better (we hope), and that includes the place where the DSL hits the house. We've cut the electricity to that section, so the modem — the last thing left over there — won't be able to do its stuff.

Until the nice people from Bell South come to move the service — which could be tomorrow with any luck, there will be less going on here. Indeed at some point I may lose dial-up too…

Posted in Discourse.net | 4 Comments

What David Bernstein Doesn’t (Want to) Get

Posted on January 29, 2004 by Michael Froomkin

It started with a pretty silly post by David Bernstein about why he thinks liberals should love G.W. Bush (because he spends lots of money). It's an argument that can only be made by applying a caricatured, no, a cartoon version of liberalism, in which spending is good per se, regardless of what you spend the money on, balanced budgets are irrelevant at all times in the business cycle, long run economic planning is of no importance, and, oh yes, whatever you do don't mention the war. Oh those silly liberals, caring about our troops, about the damage to our Army and Reserves, worrying about paying back the deficit, the looming pensions crisis, health care, not to mention equity and progressive taxation, the environment, the hinting about amending the Constitution to prevent same-sex marriage (or is it domestic partnerships, it's vague), the crony capitalism, the attack on the rights of labor, Guantanamo Bay, John Ashcroft, and I could go on.

I mean, the post was so silly that I wasn't even going to blog it. Even though I suppose it's possible that some knee-jerk Republicans might not take the trouble to work out what was wrong with it, I think most of them are smarter than that.

But the dang thing has legs.

Matthew Yglesias, who is usually pretty sharp, swallowed it whole.

And Brad DeLong, who is always sharp, swatted back in Matthew Yglesias Misses the Point, but too gently.

There is absolutely no reason a liberal should like GW Bush, and it has very little to do with the atmospherics. (As for the ranch, it would be fine if it weren't so faux.) It's about civil liberties, the environment, the war, the budget, and the continual campaign of routinely lying to the American people (see, e.g. under “Cheney”). The argument is infinitely weaker than when it was applied, only somewhat plausibly, to Nixon.

Posted in Readings | 4 Comments