Who Yoo, what Yoo do?

Jesus Haploid Christ, how did anyone as dumb as John Yoo appears to be get through law school? The fact that he’s an unmitigated partisan hack shouldn’t factor into it, because, you know, law school.

Whether he’s right or wrong is almost irrelevant at this point, to be honest — given his history, he should be disbarred immediately, and then waterboarded every day until he says he’s sorry (and means it).

The comments are even more priceless, though — a bunch of bigots and no-mark NRO readers (but I repeat myself) opining on Constitutional law and the limits of the Presidency as if they knew anything; notably absent is any discussion of the years 2001 to 2009 or signing statements during that time. Funny, that; it’s almost as if NRO readers were hypocritical douchebags or something.

Via Zandar at B-J, who wrote a much better post than I did.

ETA: More via OTB where Doug Mataconis fails to carry as much Republican water as he usually does.

Major Guantanamo Setback for Bush

I know, I know. I’m late to the party. As you all know, I’m not really one for blogging on news as it breaks. At least not with any kind of analysis. Adding links and quotes, yeah, I can do that. So could a trained monkey, although admittedly said monkey would probably be better than me at climbing trees and such.

Foreign suspects held in Guantanamo Bay have the right to challenge their detention in US civilian courts, the US Supreme Court has ruled.

In a major legal setback for the Bush administration, the court overturned by five to four a ruling upholding a 2006 law which removed such rights.

It is not clear if the ruling will lead to prompt hearings for the detainees.

Some 270 men are held at the US naval base, on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaeda and the Taleban.

US President George W Bush said he would abide by the court’s ruling even if he did not agree with it.

Human rights groups have welcomed the move, Amnesty International saying it was an “essential step forward towards the restoration of the rule of law”.

BBC News

This is obviously a fantastic decision, although disappointingly split; Chief Justice Roberts’s remarks about the rights afforded to detainees are also appallingly self-satisfied and blasé.

This sets the tone, really, for the coming years of the “war on terror”; this decision, coming after Hamdan v Rumsfeld, is likely to be a nail in the coffin of Bush-style unitary executive theory.