The WaPo has a lengthy profile of Berkeley Law Professor and architect of the Bush Administration's legal vision of absolute authority, John Yoo. In it, Yoo defends his legal interpretations by saying you can't judge him or his scholarship based on the results of his legal advice, but merely on the validity of his legal interpretation of black letter law.
Unfortunately for Mr. Yoo, he fails on multiple counts. Not the least of which because he failed to follow the cardinal rule of lawyering: present all sides of the issue, not just the ones your client wants to hear -- because it is the bad news that can be the most important thing in decision-making in any enterprise.
ReddHedd is entirely too kind to Yoo. Why? Because while Yoo may truly believe the Constitution should provide for unfettered power of the President acting as Commander in Chief, he is not a stupid man. He knows the Constitution does not provide such power to the President. It really is not a debatable point. Yoo was a lawyer with a conclusion seeking a justification. In short, a Legal Realist. That his lawyering was used to serve a theory repugnant to one of the central tenets of our government - that of a separation of power to provide checks and balances to the federal government - is precisely what one would expect from the likes of a Yoo, a Roberts, a ScAlito.
The most disappointment I have suffered in the legal mumbo jumbo surrounding these almost obscene defenses of Bush's trampling of the Constitution results from the inexplicable statements of Professor Cass Sunstein, who has twisted logic, facts, history and legal reasoning not only to defend the indefensible but to do it in horrendous fashion. Hell, Yoo is incredibly subtle and clever compared to the gross mistakes committed by Sunstein. And my question is WTF is up with that?