judge walton is a STONE-COLD-GOD for writing this footnote!

okay — the set-up here, is that
a gaggle (that’s an even dozen, in
non-legal parlance!) of law professors
just got paid a pile to have asked
to weigh-in on scooter libby’s pending
motion for bail, while his appeals are
handled by the courts. . .

and, of course — the aim is to suggest
that it is a “close question” as to whether
judge walton’s ruling — sustaining patrick
fitzgerald’s authority under the independent
counsel statutes, was correct. . .

forget the “all the grand-standing big
money can buy academics love” facets
to this motion — and simply focus on that clearly-
well-grounded, solid and street-wise judge — reggie walton.

he accepts their amicus motion, but drops a very
clever — and worldly — footnote, to his order. . .

[for dramatic effect, i have reversed the order,
setting his signature below the stellar footnote; in
the actual paper-version, the signature appears
above the footnote -- but these gems are so
rare -- this one simply must be seen, front
and center] click to enlarge:

so — what judge walton just said was that he
will expect to be able to call these esteemed
men of the law, for in-depth, well-researched,
and nearly-instant, guidance — in the future,
for truly penniless accused defendants of no
notoriety. . . and, he will expect similar
snap-to-it performances!

excellent use of snark, judge walton!

i am in awe. and i am disgusted that
these professors want to make scalia’s
dissent (i.e. not binding law) the basis
for the assertion of a “close question“. . .

arguing for the change of existing
law is not the same as presenting a close,
or conflicting set of cases, under unsettled
law. . . scalia’s dissent in morrison has
no effect whatsover as law. nor does this
largely spurrious amicus motion, drawn with all
the resources of the r.n.c./scooter
libby defense fund could buy legal accumen
mustered by these wise-old-graybeards.

here endeth my rant.

oh yeah — the motion’s caption,
and the professors’ names:

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF
AS AMICI CURIAE AND BRIEF OF LAW
PROFESSORS VIKRAM AMAR, RANDY E.
BARNETT, ROBERT H. BORK, ALAN M.
DERSHOWITZ, VIET D. DINH, DOUGLAS W.
KMIEC, GARY S. LAWSON, EARL M. MALTZ,
THOMAS W. MERRILL, ROBERT F. NAGEL,
RICHARD D. PARKER, AND ROBERT J.
PUSHAW AS AMICI CURIAE IN CONNECTION
WITH DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR BAIL PENDING APPEAL

once every 121 years, or so. . . a "no confidence" vote is required. . .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BUMP AND UPDATE — 06.08.07 @ 3:20 p.m.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
it looks as though the vote — up,
or down — will be monday. it’s still
unclear whether the measure will attract
the required 60 votes for a “sense of
the senate” — but it is non-binding
in any event. . . if even one republican
votes in favor, i’ll count it as a victory.

that is all.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[original post of 05.24.07 @ 3:56 p.m.]

well, it only happens once in every 121
years apparently, but when the president
ignores the will of the people, and their
senate. . . there are always consequences.

[here's some background on
the gentleman depicted in the wood-cut
print, below. . .]

yep. every 121 years or so, an attorney
general gets so-out-of-hand, so-dismissive-
of-the-rule-of-law, that this becomes
a necessity, unfortunately. . .

sheesh — click to enlarge:

a mid-june 2007 vote is expected
on the above resolution in the senate. . .