Just in case you may have thought I was exaggerating about judicial overreach in my last blog, I direct your attention to the pre-Christmas ruling by a U.S. District Court judge ordering the military to cease administering mandatory anthrax vaccines to servicemen on the grounds that the vaccine is "experimental" (ignoring the fact that the FDA approved this drug over 30 years ago).

The judge may rest easy in his decision, inasmuch as he could never be called to tend to servicemen under his command who are attacked with a biological weapon on the battlefield. No doubt he is eagerly awaiting the prescription of other biological weapon vaccines and antidotes so he can restrict their use too.

It would be much more efficient if we could just do away with the Medical Service Corps and other DoD decision makers and put federal judges in their places.

Just wondering...if a court takes it upon itself to ignore its constitutional authority under the Separation of Powers Doctrine, and micromanages the president's prosecution of the war as is his authority and responsibility under Article II, can the president simply ignore the ruling? (I'm referring to the Second Circuit here, the Padilla case, just in case you've been watching the news and are uninformed about anything except Michael Jackson.)

Not to mention that the Second Circuit completely ignored the the Supreme Court Quirin decision of 1948. Can a circuit court overrule SCOTUS?

After all, if Padilla or a cohort succeeds and detonates a radiological weapon in one of our cities, who will be held responsible? The courts?

As I said, just wondering.

This point has been made before, many times, but needs repeating because apparently too many have a short memory, especially in light of the rhetoric issuing forth from presidential aspirants:

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was not "preemptive." It was, legally, factually, militarily, and strategically, a continuation (and termination) of the 1990-1991 Gulf War.

We can argue endlessly about the morality of preemptive wars, but it wouldn't be relevant here. The terms of the cease-fire were violated, as documented by numerous UN resolutions and statements by UN and U.S. (Clinton administration) officials. Bush (41) and Powell were criticized repeatedly for not "finishing the job" (even though that to do so would have required the U.S. to "go it alone").

Resolve and coalition-building was needed to finish the job. It took a dozen years and two presidents to get it done, but it was done. So there is no way that enforcing the agreed terms and finishing the job can be called preemptive.

Okay?

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.
Luke 2:14

How to tell whether a sportswriter/caster/commentator/reporter is an idiot: if he believes that a "computer" picked the BCS champion.

Not that who goes to the Sugar Bowl is necessarily an earth-shattering issue. But the widespread ignorance of the process exhibited by those who should know better is significant.

It was not a computer, nor even "computer geeks" (as I heard one commentator say today) that made the decision that was so upsetting to USC fans. It was an algorithm (or formula, if you prefer) that calculated the outcome, using rules agreed to in advance by the parties involved. Furthermore, these rules were tested on historical data and validated to the satisfaction of the college administrators. The "computer" and the "geeks" who put the rules into a computer program are being unfairly blamed for an unpopular outcome (to some).

You may fault the BCS for attempting to remove emotion from the equation (why?), or for the rules not deducting for losing a conference title game (why?), or for any number of factors which should or should not be included in the algorithm, but be prepared to make your case, and don't fault the computer that executed the algorithm. It makes you look stupid, sort of like a rube who blames a hammer and saw if his chair wobbles.

(Of course, this would all be moot if the schools had adopted a playoff system, but that's another subject.)