The Dish

Sandy Levinson:

Even if one agrees with President Bush that 30 months was "excessive," it is obviously a logical fallacy to assume that the alternative to 30 months is not a single day. More to the point, it is altogether tempting to put the pardon within the framework set out by Mason and Martin: The best explanation of the pardon is not compassion but, rather, fear that Mr. Libby might be tempted to provide more information about the cabal to turn the presidency (and vice-presidency) into "regal," if not out-and-out dictatorial, authorities totally independent from any scrutiny or accountability. This is simply one more illustration of the mendacity and corruption at the heart of the Bush Administration (and, therefore, of the present American system of government).

No one should doubt that we are in a constitutional crisis.

Another for everyone else. The NYT draws a parallel to the Libby commutation:

In a case decided two weeks ago by the United States Supreme Court, the Justice Department persuaded the Supreme Court to affirm the 33-month sentence of a defendant whose case closely resembled that against Mr. Libby. The defendant, Victor A. Rita, was, like Mr. Libby, convicted of perjury, making false statements to federal agents and obstruction of justice.

Mr. Rita has performed extensive government service, just as Mr. Libby has. Mr. Rita served in the armed forces for more than 25 years, receiving 35 commendations, awards and medals. Like Mr. Libby, Mr. Rita had no criminal history for purposes of the federal sentencing guidelines.

The judges who sentenced the two men increased their sentences by taking account of the crimes about which they lied. Mr. Rita’s perjury concerned what the court called “a possible violation of a machine-gun registration law,” while Mr. Libby’s of a possible violation of a federal law making it a crime to disclose the identities of undercover intelligence agents in some circumstances.

When Mr. Rita argued that his 33-month sentence had failed adequately to consider his history and circumstances, the Justice Department strenuously disagreed.

That’s the same Justice Department the president failed to consult in micro-managing the legal system for his friends and employees. When you’re the king, who needs an attorney-general?

A vent. I think you can argue that the perjury issue was incidental to the original crime. You can even argue that there was no crime. But you cannot argue that Libby’s testimony was not perjury, unless you claim to know more than the jury; or that premeditated perjury by a leading figure in the government is not something the legal system has a duty to punish clearly. The sentence was in part demonstrative – of the fundamental issue at stake, i.e. whether the agents of the executive branch are above the law. The commutation sends an equally powerful message. The president believes his judgment on these matters is worth more than a jury’s. That monarchical prerogative is in part what the American revolution was designed to abolish. And now it has come full circle.

Marty is a great friend. I have no doubt he is sincere in defending Libby. I have no reason to doubt that Libby is a very nice man, for a perjurer and a smear artist for the powerful. But the law must always count for more than mere friendship. Libby broke the law and undermined the judicial system; and Bush’s commutation of the sentence is a clear declaration that the rule of law ends at the administration’s edge. Thousands of other perjured felons could get a commutation, but they’re not friends with George W. Bush and Marty Peretz. And so they have no chance. The bottom line for Americans is this: George Bush’s friends do not go to jail. Your friends do.

This is a very simple matter. Either Libby is subject to the rule of law or not. Bush’s action is constitutionally solid but morally and politically indefensible – an act of arrogance born of permanent privilege that still, somehow, even after all these years, manages to shock.

San Francisco, California, 1 pm.

"President Bush has made the correct decision. It makes me so proud to be an American. Justice prevails in the face of an overzealous prosecutor who wanted to punish Lewis Libby simply for being a Republican," – blogs4brownback.

"What he hasn’t done is lie in a corridor all night at the Royal Free [Hospital] watching his severed toe disintegrate in a plastic cup of melted ice. I have," – Times of London movie critic James Christopher, on Michael Moore’s latest propaganda flick. Kurt Loder’s pan is here. Reason’s is here.

Forget the pandering by the Democratic candidates. Last week’s Supreme Court decision on racial integration was no abandonment of Brown. It was in many ways its logical extension in a new era. Steve Chapman explains:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who found the decision "appalling," asserted that since Brown, "it has been settled law that the Constitution requires racially mixed schools."

In fact, what the court ordered back then was not "racially mixed schools." What it ordered was the removal of laws and policies prohibiting racially mixed schools. The principle it upheld was nondiscrimination — which would often (but not always) lead to racial integration…

The real educational problems faced by minority kids today are not lack of white students to sit by but inadequate choice, lack of order, a shortage of good teachers and families who don’t make a priority of learning. Most parents, given a choice between racially balanced schools and safe, sound schools, would unhesitatingly choose the latter. In the wake of this decision, education officials can now focus more on what’s really important.

The logical conclusion of the religiously based party that Rove and Bush have built is that strictly sectarian issues can and indeed should be salient factors in political debates. Someone’s religion can and must be considered in electing that person to office – if you believe the things that Bush and Rove and Gerson and Kristol and Bauer and Hewitt and Ponnuru and so many others profess to believe. One of those others is Richard John Neuhaus, a long-time believer in the fusion of religion and politics. He deserves praise for sticking to his guns and arguing that someone’s religious faith can be a legitimate factor in American politics:

The question is not whether, as president, Mr. Romney would take orders from Salt Lake City. I doubt whether many people think he would. The questions are: Would a Mormon as president of the United States give greater credibility and prestige to Mormonism? The answer is almost certainly yes. Would it therefore help advance the missionary goals of what many view as a false religion? The answer is almost certainly yes. Is it legitimate for those Americans to take these questions into account in voting for a presidential nominee or candidate? The answer is certainly yes.

Hugh Hewitt just bounced violently off afore-mentioned petard. Boinggg.

The questions are getting more emotive. This one is a symptom of the growing sense that government is the ultimate responsible party for the healthcare of citizens:

Bruce Reed does some important investigative journalism:

Most uptight Republican politicians would run away from a fictional, underage immigrant throwing herself at their feet in hopes of making a big splash on the Internet. Not Tagg Romney. His attitude is: When you write the Romneys, you’re not a fake—you’re family.