[The Pack Knight]

When I was clerking for an appellate judge, I remember reading a pro se brief where the appellant complained about how all her subpoenas were "squashed" - I thought it was hilarious at the time. Now that I've heard that Waters says the same thing, it doesn't seem so funny.

Of course, that pro se litigant, like Waters, at least has the excuse of not having gone to law school - though you'd think Waters would have picked it up as a member of a body with subpoena powers. Sheila Jackson Lee has a J.D. from Virginia, whose law school last I checked was ranked a step higher than Duke's, and went to undergrad at Yale. I'll leave to your imagination my honest opinion on how she was able to get into and graduate from those two institutions.

I suspect that no one made Lee's argument, at least. The witnesses were all very distinguished lawyers and law professors, and Senators tend to conduct their deliberations with at least somewhat more seriousness and dignity than members of the House.

I saw a good piece of Franken's part, and I don't think even he repeated Lee's position. The dumbest argument he made - that current constitutional jurisprudence must reflect the intent of the Framers since it is based on a string of precedent (or, as he put it, "A=B=C=D, so therefore A=D) - at least had some internal logic even though it was grossly misinformed. Unfortunately, I don't remember anyone pointing out to him that Wickard v. Filburn stands in direct contrast to every pre-New Deal case on the Commerce Clause going back at least to Gibbons v. Ogden in 1824.

[ratsreek]

It doesn’t take any imagination to understand how Lee got into law school nor how she managed to graduate. She’s black.

Her degree takes its form not in scholarly pontifications of law but rather in her pompous bearing and bellicose gasbaggery.