Dave Barry: 2005 In Law

And Also: Orin Kerr (and many comments) makes mincemeat of a WSJ piece promoting excessive Art. II powers. As to Kerr's comment that the executive's actions probably pass Fourth Amendment muster (which doesn't save them), see also his comment that "the usual role of the Fourth Amendment ... [is] a floor on privacy." As to the Congress' role in determining "reasonableness," see in part this ruling [looking toward, in part, "the expression of the judgment of Congress"], which also suggests SC liberals can use original understanding quite well. In fact, I find they often do it quite well.

Dave Barry is on hiatus, but came out to write another wicked year in review feature. This is a two-parter: law first.

But the major issue facing our elected leaders in March clearly is not whether a bunch of overpaid athletes cheated. No, at a time when the nation is beset by serious problems in so many critical areas -- including Iraq, terrorism, the economy, energy, education and health care -- the issue that obsesses our elected leaders to the point of paralyzing government at the federal, state and local levels for weeks, is: Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. This, unfortunately, is not a joke. ...

In a strongly worded rebuttal, angry Congressional Democrats state that, because of a scheduling mix-up, they missed the president's speech, but whatever he said, they totally disagree with it, and if they once voted in favor of it, they did so only because the president lied to them. ...

The Supreme Court remains in the news in . . . . . . JULY . . . when Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announces her retirement, setting off a heated debate between right-wing groups, who think the president should appoint a conservative to replace her, and left-wing groups, who think the president should drop dead. Eventually Bush nominates a man going by the moniker of "John Roberts," who, in the tradition of recent Supreme Court nominees, refuses to reveal anything about himself, and wears a Zorro-style mask to protect his secret identity. In response, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Sen. Joe Biden, vow to, quote, "get on television a LOT." ...

In non-hurricane news, the Senate confirms the Supreme Court nominee known as "John Roberts" after the Judiciary Committee spends several fruitless days trying to trick him into expressing an opinion by asking such trap questions as "Can you tell us the capital of Vermont and your views on abortion?" The only moment of drama comes when Sen. Joe Biden launches into his opening remarks, thus causing several committee members, who forgot to insert earplugs, to lapse into comas. ...

. . . OCTOBER . . . President Bush, needing to make another appointment to the Supreme Court, conducts a thorough and painstaking investigation of every single woman lawyer within an 8-foot radius of his desk. He concludes that the best person for the job is White House Counsel Harriet Miers, who, in the tradition of such legendary justices as Felix Frankfurter, Louis Brandeis and Oliver Wendell Holmes, is a carbon-based life form.

Ultimately Miers withdraws her name. The president, after conducting another exhaustive search, decides to appoint "John Roberts" again, because it worked out so well the first time. Informed by his aides that there could be some legal problem with this tactic, the president finally decides to nominate Samuel Alito. Democrats immediately announce that they strongly oppose Alito and intend to do some research soon to find out why.