• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« King & Spalding Asks to Withdraw from Marriage Litigation | Main | Judge Wants Info on Bank Selection Process in Class Action Settlement »

April 25, 2011



Wasn't "the above comment" (by Mike) intended as sarcasm?

Christine Flowers

The above comment is obviously from someone who thinks that the DOJ and Eric Holder displayed 'legal integrity' in turning its back on a law that, as of the moment, is constitutional. So much for legal 'consistency.'


Oral argument in Padilla v. United States

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Suppose the executive says mild torture, we think, will help get this information. It's not a soldier who does something against the Code of Military Justice, but it's an executive command. Some systems do that to get information.

Paul Clement: Our executive doesn't.

Bravo for legal integrity.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad