I just posted a response to a thoughtful comment made regarding my earlier jeremiad aimed at Texas Watch’s recent report entitled, “In the Shadows: A look Into the Texas Supreme Court’s Overuse of Anonymous Opinions.” Of course, after my recent “discourse” with someone purporting to be Adam “Bulletproof” Reposa, pretty much anything is–by comparison–civil, restrained, and respectful.

Please permit me to plagiarize myself and reprint some of my response here as I think it bears directly upon the merits–or lack thereof–of the most recent Texas Watch “study.”

[O]ne of the main thrusts of my argument is that the very jurisprudential purpose of a per curiam opinion negates the central tenet of Texas Watch’s argument that per curiams are being inappropriately used to dispose of legally complex cases that should be issued as an authored opinion.

Instead, I posit that the more likely cause of the undisputed rise in per curiam disposition of cases is attributable to the Court’s desire to clear its undenied backlog of cases—of which Texas Watch has previously complained. My point is that it wholly undermines what little credibility may be initially afforded Texas Watch to knock the Court for utilizing the only determinative tool at its disposal to address an urgent problem of which Texas Watch has publicly ridiculed the Court. Texas Watch can’t have it both ways.

To believe otherwise is not just to merely accuse the six Justices who vote to issue a given per curiam opinion of being complicit in flouting the very appellate rules they are charged with drafting, but it is to accuse all nine Justices of intentional malfeasance because every such per curiam opinion is authored en banc. No serious observer or critic of the Court would accuse every single Justice of being either so incompetent or malicious as that. That is why such claims cannot be taken seriously.

However, if your objection is really that I didn’t refute the individual merits of the fourteen cases incorrectly cited by Texas Watch in their report, let me indulge you.

At the outset, however, one should note that the political agenda (as opposed to legal analysis) of Texas Watch is revealed by their “[i]mpact” headings under each case’s discussion in the report. The political impact of any particular decision is, of course, constitutionally beyond the purview of the Court to decide. Indeed, that is why Texas has a legislative branch. But if the legal merits (or lack thereof) of a case demand a certain result, that result can very well have political impacts that are distasteful to the public at large. That is precisely how the system is supposed to work; so that the public can then go to their elected representatives in the Legislature and demand a change in the law to remedy the odious effect. But it is not constitutionally up to Court to masquerade as a super legislature. To assume otherwise is to reveal a basic and fundamental misunderstanding of not only remedial civics but of the constitutional function of the judicial branch.

Now to the cases, none of which are even vaguely legally controversial on their merits.

In In re RLS Legal Solutions, LLC, 221 S.W.3d 629, 630 (Tex. 2007) (per curiam), the Court hinged its holding on its earlier, authored opinion in In re FirstMerit Bank, N.A., 52 S.W.3d 749, 756 (Tex. 2001). Indeed, that is likely why this case was issued per curiam, because the central legal issue had already been decided by a previous, authored opinion.

In Schaub v. Sanchez, 229 S.W.3d 322, 322 (Tex. 2007) (per curiam), the “only theories under which the patient could recover were dismissed by agreed order in the trial court.” Error was not preserved by agreement of the parties; clearly a case hugely appropriate for per curiam disposition.

In Ed Rachal Found. v. D’Unger, 207 S.W.3d 330, 331 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam), the Court again referred to two earlier, authored opinions that resolved the determinative legal issue on appeal. See Austin v. HealthTrust, Inc.-The Hosp. Co., 967 S.W.2d 400, 401-02 (Tex. 1998 ); Winters v. Houston Chronicle Publ’g Co., 795 S.W.2d 723, 723 (Tex. 1990.

In In re DuPont de Nemours & Co., 136 S.W.3d 218, 227 (Tex. 2004) (per curiam), the Court reversed a trial court’s discovery order as to one subset of withheld documents. While this opinion was a little more legally complex than those discussed above, it is far more likely that the Court issued it per curiam because it dealt with only a pretrial matter and involved some 530 documents out of the more than 55,000 pages produced.

In Old Am. County Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Renfrow, 130 S.W.3d 70, 72-73 (Tex. 2004) (per curiam), the Court held that driving a company truck to the house of the employee’s girlfriend, and then later some forty miles away to a night spot was a “material deviation from any implied permission he may have had to use the vehicle.” The facts aren’t even close here on the scope of the permission involved—hence the per curiam disposition.

In Dallas Metrocare Servs. v. Pratt, 124 S.W.3d 147, 149 (Tex. 2003) (per curiam), the Court again relied upon a previous, authored opinion’s holding that “mere incorporation of … [a] definition” from another statute “does not by itself manifest a clear legislative intent to waive immunity.” See Wichita Falls State Hospital v. Taylor, 106 S.W.3d 692 (Tex. 2003).

In Speed Boat Leasing, Inc. v. Elmer, 124 S.W.3d 210, 213 (Tex. 2003) (per curiam), the Court referenced several prior, authored opinions each of which that held a common carrier is an entity whose “business … is public transportation,” but not one to whom “such transportation is ‘only incidental’ to its primary business.”

In Tiller v. McLure, 121 S.W.3d 709, 714-15 (Tex. 2003) (per curiam), the Court held that a series of contentious, callous, and unprofessional contacts by the petitioner regarding two commercial construction contracts– while reprehensible–was not so atrocious as to qualify as “extreme and outrageous.” This one involved a little more legal analysis and might have been a somewhat closer question than those discussed above, but was clearly not so outside so the purview of the Court as to be labeled an “inappropriate” use of a per curiam opinion.

In Marathon Corp. v. Pitzner, 106 S.W.3d 724, 728 nn.7, 8 (Tex. 2003) (per curiam), the Court relied upon a multitude of previous, authored opinions that plainly held “some suspicion linked to other suspicion produces only more suspicion, which is not the same as some evidence,” and “an inference stacked only on other inferences is not legally sufficient evidence.” No great jurisprudential stretch that.

In In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., 145 S.W.3d 203, 208-11 (Tex. 2001) (per curiam), the Court vacated a pretrial consolidation order after relying upon the diagnostic framework established by a previous, authored opinion. In re Ethyl, 975 S.W.2d 601 (Tex. 1998 ). Once again, a pretrial dispute, the merits of which were plainly governed by a prior, authored opinion.

In Walls Regional Hosp. v. Bomar, 9 S.W.3d 805, 807 (Tex. 1999) (per curiam), the Court again relied upon several prior, authored opinions that established the record did not support the appellees’ contention that the conduct complained of originated and was then “transported into the place of employment from [their] private or domestic [lives],” or that the appellant intentionally injured the appellees.

As with many per curiam opinions, the Court in In Koch Ref. Co. v. Chapa, 11 S.W.3d 153, 156-57 (Tex. 1999) (per curiam) appeared to have rejected the proposed application of a well established recovery doctrine to novel yet simple fact-pattern.

In In re Oakwood Mobile Homes, Inc., 987 S.W.2d 571, 574 (Tex. 1999) (per curiam), the Court hardly stretched its jurisprudential limits by relying upon a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals case and the seminal authority on contracts that the mere fact the real parties in interest possessed “no bargaining power or ability to change the contract terms” is not, in and of itself, legally “automatically unconscionable or void.” See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Security Pac. Corp., 961 F.2d 1148, 1154 (5th Cir. 1992) (citing 6A ARTHUR CORBIN, CONTRACTS § 1376, at 20-21 (1962) & 7-9 (Supp. 1991)).

Finally, Texas Watch bemoans a per curiam opinion which is only six lines long. See Am. Home Assur. Co. v. Stephens, 982 S.W.2d 370, 370 (Tex. 199 (pre curiam). Moreover, the opinion itself is an answer to a certified question from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and defers to the lengthy legal analysis contained in a Fifth Circuit dissent—hence it’s brevity (and per curiam nature).

That’s it, that’s the sum total of juristic outrage of which Texas Watch complains. While Texas Watch has every right–and to the extent that it may even be correct–to complain of the political effect of these decisions, Texas Watch’s ire is misdirected. The legal bases for these per curiam decisions are sound and entirely appropriate for per curiam disposition. Texas Watch would do far better to publicly harangue and chastise the true arbiters of the perceived misery against which Texas Watch rails—the Texas Legislature.

Just don’t masquerade as legal experts presenting a sober and thorough analysis of the Court’s recent per curiam practice seriously testing what may indeed turn out to be a fair thesis. Instead, Texas Watch has manifestly either been incapable of attracting or hiring a seasoned appellate expert to conduct such an analysis, or they have more likely just not bothered to even attempt such an endeavor. Neither motive is a fair or rational basis to impugn the professional integrity and legal acumen of those who have garnered the electoral support of a majority of the voters in our Great State.

Thx to Lefty

Because it’s Friday afternoon, I am compelled to bring this “life imitating art” clip to you. Have to give it to Sir Charles, he was a good sport about it.

* * * WARNING: NSFW LANGUAGE * * *

And the art ….

Thx to HotAir and YouTube

Yesterday, I posted my own diatribe to counter the latest press release issued by Texas Watch, but noted at the end of my post that I was most concerned about the publication of the number of per curiam opinions issued per Justice by the Office of Court Administration (OCA).

Well, the OCA was kind enough to clarify for me the history of this practice which largely assuages my original concern–for whatever that’s worth.

The collection and publication of this per curiam data is hardly new, having been annually compiled for some twenty-seven years since OCA first began tracking the number of per curiam decisions issued by each Justice as early as 1981. Moreover, the OCA specifically sought input from SCOTX in both 2004 and 2006 regarding the contents of the OCA’s annual report, and the Court expressed no concern regarding publication of the per curiam statistics.

The OCA was also correct to point out that the identity of the opinions enumerated in the statistics is kept confidential, with only the number of opinions issued per chamber being made public.

So, at the end of the day, I am likely the only person to whom this one column of data jumped out as being slightly odd. Moreover, if neither the Court nor the OCA are troubled by the practice, than it is certainly beyond my purview to be.

Thx to the OCA for accurately, annually, and faithfully reporting the current statistical state of the Texas judiciary

Shenanigans points out the colorable differences between yesterday’s Hardball and today’s.

Thx to Shenanigans

SCOTX Blog has a great post today regarding the latest screed from Texas Watch in their ever-vigilant quest to find new ways to sound imbecilic (my description only).

Texas Watch has apparently prepared a new “report” which purports to shine the light of truth on SCOTX’s “penchant for secrecy” by “using per curiam opinions inappropriately to avoid accountability for some of the tough decisions.“

Before I delve into the nonexistent merits of Texas Watch’s revelation, there is something curious going on here. Both the Houston Chronicle and the AP have published news accounts describing a report that Texas Watch has not even yet issued. Does anyone else find it odd that supposedly objective news outlets would be writing articles concerning PR dossiers that haven’t even been released to the public yet?

As to the merits, as any lawyer knows (which perhaps explains Mr. Winslow’s ignorance), per curiam opinions are a remedial tool used by SCOTX (and the courts of appeals for that matter) to more quickly dispose of cases that require only relatively straightforward error correction. See Hon. Robert H. Pemberton, One Year Under the New TRAP: Improvements, Problems and Unresolved Issues in Texas Supreme Court Proceedings, in State Bar of Tex. Prof’l Dev. Program, Advanced Civil Appellate Practice Course B, B-18 (1998).

In fact, SCOTX first began to increase its use of per curiam opinions as early as 1925, when–not coincidentally–the Court was suffering from such a severe backlog of cases that a separate judicial body was created to assist in the mass adjudication of pending cases. See David M. Gunn, “Unpublished Opinions Shall Not Be Cited as Authority”: The Emerging Contours of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 90(i), 24 ST. MARY’S L.J. 115, 117 (1992) (describing how, beginning in 1925, the Texas Supreme Court began to increase its issuance of per curiam opinions, “perhaps as a corrective device”); see also Act of Apr. 3, 1918, 35th Leg., 4th C.S., ch. 81, 1918 Tex. Gen. Laws 171 (made effective April 3, 1918, and reestablishing the Texas Commission of Appeals); Tex. S.J. Res. 8, 49th Leg., R.S., 1945 Tex. Gen. Laws 1043 (adopted at election held Aug. 25, 1945 eliminating the Texas Commission of Appeal).

Accordingly, per curiam opinions are used to more efficiently dispose of those cases upon which there is little or no disagreement, and which present fairly straightforward legal issues. In other words, if the Court is issuing more per curiam opinions, it is probably more accurately an indicia of an increased determination to reduce the Court’s backlog (previously bemoaned by Texas Watch) of appropriate cases than it is a Machiavellian attempt to shroud the deciding members from public scrutiny.

To the contrary, the use of such a jurisprudential mechanism actually INCREASES the scrutiny upon the Justices because a per curiam opinion is–by definition–issued by the entire Court. Every Justice is given equal praise/blame for the failings or triumphs of the decision, as compared to an authored opinion which can be attributed only to the majority of Justices who sign it.

Moreover, because the only type of case that is appropriate for per curiam disposition is one in which the legal issues are clear, straightforward, and non-controversial, Winslow’s claim that “[a]ll too often, the Texas Supreme Court uses per curiam opinions as a shield to hide behind when they render decisions that are controversial, leaving them unaccountable to voters” can simply not be taken seriously. Any decision likely to cause controversy or which demands the Court clarify a muddled or disputed area of the law is precisely the type of opinion least likely to be issued per curiam. And, as explained above, a per curiam opinion subjects every single Justice on the Court to elevated scrutiny, not just the authoring few.

Again, any basic analysis of the different types of opinions SCOTX is empowered to issue is a bit dry and legally complicated so I can’t really fault a group of non-lawyers (save for the one four-year lawyer Texas Watch recently hired) for failing to comprehend the finer points of the practice.

Most interesting to me is SCOTX Blog’s noting that the official statistics published annually by the Office of Court Administration track the per curiam opinions written by each Justice (see page four of the .pdf file).

While it is of course obvious that a single Justice must be logistically tasked to author a per curiam opinion, the identity of that Justice should remain anonymous because it is the Court as a whole that is issuing the opinion. The fact that OCA tracks and publishes this data, tying these opinions to the chambers which issue them (by number of opinions only) is more troublesome than any flotsam trotted out by Texas Watch.

Thx to SCOTX Blog

You’d think that law firms–of all places–would be bastions of political correctness and equality, or at the very least, the last professional environment where one could expect to have the following things happen.

First, it was Paul Hastings‘ (known for its employment law practice) extreme lack of tact (or timing) in firing an associate six days after she suffered a miscarriage. Then the firm had the audacity to coerce her into signing a non-disclosure agreement in exchange for three month’s pay (which she rightly refused).

They are now reaping what they sowed.

Now, a former associate of Bingham McCutchen is suing her former firm for failing to take action after she reported being drugged with tegretol (an anti-seizure medication that causes memory loss when taken with alcohol) at a firm holiday party.

Wouldn’t most folks assume that a LAW FIRM would be proactive if not aggressive in trying to get to the bottom of such criminal and damaging behavior?

Apparently not.

* * * UPDATE * * *

Bingham has responded with its official side of the story.

Thx to Above the Law

Following up on our post last week comparing the gross revenues of BigTex and MidTex (and BigLaw generally), see the Texas-generated gross revenues figures of the top BigLaw firms in Texas.

Jones Day $161.8 million
Weil, Gotshal, & Manges $140.4 million
Hunton & Williams $90 million
King and Spalding 82.2 million
Mayer Brown $64.2 million

Thx to Res Ipsa

We related some of the anectdotes contained in a new tome about the life and times of former Lieutenant Governor and Comptroller Bob Bullock , entitled, “Bob Bullock: God Bless Texas.”

Well the book, and particularly the conduct of the authors, has not sat well with Bullock’s widow and many of his closest friends and colleagues.

The bad blood apparently goes back to a 1994 column by book co-author Dave McNeely (on the left above) that ran two days after Bullock had heart bypass surgery, which speculated who would be lieutenant governor if Bullock died.

Very subtle Dave, can’t imagine why Jan Bullock would have taken offense at that.

Several Bullock aides also questioned the inclusion of incidents that occurred before Bullock sought treatment for alcoholism in the 1980s.

Book co-author Jim Henderson (on the right above), offered this less-than-tasteful response to the negative reaction to the book by Bullock loyalists and widow Jan Bullock:

Jan wanted to write her own book about Bullock. Didn’t happen. Get over it. Then she did her best to obstruct the writing of this book. Didn’t happen. Get over it. Then she did her best to block publication. Didn’t happen. Get over it. She apparently wanted to control everything written about her late husband. Didn’t happen. Ain’t gonna happen. Get over it.

Mcneely may have revealed the authors’ true motivation in including more of the salacious (and disputed) details of Mr. Bullock’s life, when he admitted to the Statesman that “he hopes the book fuels a TV pilot.”

I bet he does.

Thx to Postcards from the Lege, the Statesman, and Texas Politics

Of the 1,072 folks who sat for the February 2008 Texas Bar Exam, some 762 people–or 71.08 percent–passed.

The breakdown by Texas law school was as follows:

Baylor Law School 95.83%
Texas Tech University School of Law 92.86%
Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law 92.31%
South Texas College of Law 88.24%
St. Mary’s School of Law 86.96%
University Of Texas School of Law 80.00%
Texas Wesleyan School of Law 79.59%
University Of Houston Law Center 78.95%
Texas Southern University Thurgood Marshall School of Law 59.26%

Thx to Res Ipsa and Tex Parte Blog

Justice Scalia gave his best interview yet the other day with Brian Lamb on C-SPAN’s series, Q&A.

One of the most interesting segments was when Lamb showed Justice Scalia this clip from the Daily Show castigating his 60 Minutes appearance and his vote in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), and then asked for his reaction.

“I watched [the Daily Show] once and that was enough.”

Justice Scalia elaborated further. First, he reminded John Stewart that President Bush was subsequently re-elected in 2004, so blaming his current occupancy of the office, the ongoing war in Iraq, or anything else derivatively-related in 2008 is specious. Second, he recounted how press studies conducted subsequent to the election found that Vice President Gore would have still lost even if he had never brought the election challenge that eventually resulted in Bush v. Gore, and the votes had been counted the way Gore sought. Third, and “penultimately,” Justice Scalia reiterated that the case only came before SCOTUS because Gore brought the suit, so it was he–not Bush or SCOTUS–who “wanted courts to decide the election.”

What was SCOTUS supposed to do when one of the parties (Bush) alleged the Florida Supreme Court had violated the federal constitution, “turn the case down for not being important enough … hardly.” Last, he also reiterated a point I have made as well that the vote finding the Florida Supreme Court violated the constitution was 7-2, not 5-4.

Justice Scalia also hinted at some future books he’d like to write, most exciting of which would be a sequel to his seminal tome, “A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law.”

The discussion ranged from what items are in his official SCOTUS portrait (a copy of–what else–The Federalist, and Webster’s Second International Dictionary (he doesn’t care for the Third edition)) to whether he still smokes a pipe (which he said was a very useful tool during his confirmation hearings to distract attention from what he was saying).

Thx to Convictions, WestBlog, and WSJ Law Blog

A few days ago, Volokh had a post entitled, “It’s David Lat’s World, and BigLaw Partners Are Just Living In It.” I couldn’t agree more. Above the Law has become an essential outlet for exposing BigLaw tomfoolery and scandal.

One commenter over ATL put it best when they said:

Fact: H. Rodgin Cohen wears David Lat pajamas.
Fact: Before he goes to bed Jim Sandman checks his closet for Kashmir Hill.

Fact: Fear is not the only emotion David Lat can smell. He can also detect hope, as in “I hope I don’t get profiled on Above The Law by David Lat.”

Fact: A study showed the leading causes of death among partners in the AmLaw 100 are: 1. Heart disease, 2. David Lat, 3. Cancer.

Thx to David Lat and Volokh

Our own little brand of movie magic first started here in Austin in 1997 is all grown up.

A new franchisee is opening the first location outside of Texas in Winchester, Virginia, which is a college town about seventy-five miles from Washington D.C.

Alamo currently has seven locations in Texas, and plans to open two more theatres in San Antonio and McAllen, and up to thirty more locations in Florida, Georgia, Oklahoma and Arizona by 2010.

Thx to the Austin Business Journal

The past few months or so have seen some truly momentous changes in the Texas appellate world, particularly as viewed from Houston.

In March, the respected appellate practice group at Mayer Brown splintered, with a portion leaving to head up the new appellate practice at Pillsbury, and another faction headlined by former SCOTUS clerks Brett Busby (Stevens, J.) and Jeff Oldham (Rehnquist, C.J.) moving to Bracewell Giuliani.

The latest addition to the Houston appellate scene is Morgan Lewis’ recent announcement that former Solicitor General Ted Cruz will be helping lead the firm’s effort to build the SCOTUS and national appellate practice from its Houston office.

Thx to SCOTX Blog and Tex Parte Blog

Today, Senator John McCain gave a 3,383 word speech expounding upon his judicial philosophy, but as Jonathan Martin keenly observed, this picture speaks louder than any soundbite in the Senator’s speech.

Thx to Jonathan Martin

Justice Scalia by a mile, according to D.C. Dicta.

After reviewing oral argument transcripts from this past term, D.C. Dicta alloted the gallery chortles this way:

Justice Antonin Scalia: 74
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.: 23
Justice Stephen Breyer: 21
Justice David Souter: 17
Justice Anthony Kennedy: 9
Justice John Paul Stevens: 7
Justice Samuel Alito, Jr.: 4
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 4
Justice Clarence Thomas: 0

Of course, Justice Thomas‘ lowly rating is less a comment on his sense of humor as much as it is a function of his recalcitrance to make any comment during oral argument, funny or otherwise.

Thx to D.C. Dicta

That’s right UT Head Football Coach Mack Brown has an endowed academic chair in global affairs at UT’s LBJ School of Public Affairs.

Now, the title doesn’t mean Coach Brown actually teaches at the LBJ School, but instead that a professor does whose salary is paid by the chair’s endowment.

Brown now joins two other legendary college football coaches–Joe Paterno at Penn State and Woody Hayes at Ohio State–as the only three in the nation to have academic chairs endowed in their name.

In fact, in two weeks Coach Paterno will be in Austin, along with NFL Hall of Famer Lynn Swann to headline a fundraising dinner aimed at raising the final $500,000 needed to fully fund Coach Brown’s chair. The athletic department donated an initial $500,000 to establish the chair, and the LBJ Foundation has raised another $1 million in the interim.

If you are interested in attending, dinner tickets are $1,000, tickets for the VIP reception are $25,000, and co-chairs sponsorships are $100,000.

Thx to Texas Politics

This past weekend, I finally sat down to watch Frontline’s recent, two-part report on the lead-up to and the conduct of the war in Iraq. Despite Frontline’s well-earned reputation for being left-leaning, the report itself was very well done and comprehensive, including interviews with almost every single person of note both within and without the Bush Administration. The interplay between the Administration heavyweights is enthralling, and the documentary does a great job of providing the contextual background to each person’s strongly-held views. Even realizing the documentary has a political agenda, any viewer (including one as avowedly conservative as myself) can learn a lot from this report.

I found Part I, which covers the period of time from 9/11, through the CIA’s war in Afghanistan, to the beginning of the fighting in Iraq, to be the most enlightening. It is fascinating to watch how the whole of the U.S. foreign policy apparatus was drastically and immediately changed by 9/11, from being perennially cemented in a defensive posture, to a proactive, “kick a[$$]” footing.

Part I also delves into the flawed intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq, but curiously fails to include the intelligence reports that actually did turn out to be accurate, as recently published by the Institute for Defense Analyses after reviewing some 600,000 Pentagon documents.

Part II delves into all the different players and chapters of the Iraq war, giving noticeably short shrift to the recent success of the “surge.” However, it is a very thorough recounting of the ebbs and flows in the Iraq War and provides background information on many familiar events of which I was unaware. Recommended viewing all around.

I thought the most intriguing interviews were those in Part I of the CIA guys, including Cofer Black (who served as director of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Counterterrorism Center from 1999 to 2002), Gary Berntsen (a CIA field officer who was awarded the Distinguished Intelligence Medal and the Intelligence Star for commanding a team of CIA and special forces during the war in Afghanistan in 2001), Michael Scheuer (chief of the CIA’s Bin Laden Desk from 1995 to 1999 and headed an internal CIA investigation into the allegations of a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda), and Gary Schroen (CIA operator who was chosen soon after 9/11 to lead the first trip into northern Afghanistan to connect with leaders of the Northern Alliance, offer money, equipment and political support), who detail how the CIA went immediately into Afghanistan after 9/11 and began to bring the fight to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

“You[, (Black),] have a personal involvement with Al Qaeda and [Osama] bin Laden. The way the story goes, he tried to kill you …. Tell me a little bit of that story.”

They thought I was the target; actually, I was the hunter, and we turned it on them (snaps fingers) like that. And when they had their chance, they ran home to Mama.

Black, on his immediate thoughts after learning of the 9/11 attacks that morning:

We are now in a situation where we’ll no longer be like the junkyard dog staked to the ground, … and that our capabilities were going to be unleashed and realized.

Schroen, on the orders he received from Black on September 13, 2001:

He basically said to me: “I want to make it clear what your real job is. All these other things — linking up with the Northern Alliance, preparing the battlefield, helping the special forces get in or whatever happens — is fine. But once the Taliban are broken, your job is to find bin Laden, kill him and bring his head back on ice.”

Scheuer, quoting Black’s directives regarding Al Qaeda:

“We’re going to put their heads on pikes. And we want flies crossing–crawling across their dead eyes.”

Berntsen, describing the orders he received from Black around September 15, 2001:

One-third of your men will die. Be prepared for that. I accept it; you need to accept it and proceed aggressively. I want you killing the enemy in 48 hours.

Schroen, recounting Black’s summary of the strategy against Al Qaeda:

[T]he gloves are off.

Black, on implementing the war plan against Al Qaeda:

We really took momentum. And George Tenet said OK, take the plan and have it ready by tomorrow. We spent years working on this stuff, so when everybody else is looking for their maps on Afghanistan, we’re ready to rock; we’re ready to roll ….

Black, on the CIA’s performance in Afghanistan:

[W]e’d like the survivors of 9/11 to know that those of us in the business consider it the CIA’s finest hour. We went in to kick a[$$], and we did that.

Black, on 20/20 hindsight:

Well, I would like to put this into perspective for you. … It always gives me pause when I think about the fact that the 9/11 Commission hired twice as much staff … and were allocated twice as much money than I was provided to fight Al Qaeda worldwide on an annual basis.

Thx to Frontline

How much money does it take to start a record label? A lot I’m sure. But $360 billion?

That was the excuse given by a Fort Worth man who tried to cash a check made out for $360,000,000,000.00. He quickly lowered his monetary sights (by about 96 million times), however, posting bail for $3,750.00.

Thx to Above the Law, the FW Star-Telegram, and MSNBC

Here are several more fascinating interviews with both Justice Scalia and Bryan Garner regarding their new book, Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges.

The first three clips come courtesy of NPR’s own Nina Totenberg, whose interview Justice Scalia and Bryan Garner was featured in three parts on Morning Edition, Day to Day, and All Things Considered.

The second interview is with Bryan Garner alone, courtesty of Thomson Reuters’ blog.

Thx to How Appealing, Res Ipsa, Westblog, and NPR

Craig Ferguson turned out to be a hit at this year’s White House Correspondents’ Association dinner, poking fun at everyone, but tastefully so.

President Bush’s speech was a retrospective of his past seven appearances at the dinner, some of which were pretty funny. My favorites were Laura Bush’s 2005 quip that “9:00 o’clock and Mr. Excitement here is sound asleep … and I’m watching Desperate Housewives,” and Bush’s 2001 assurance that he held no hard feelings against his brother, the then-Governor of Florida, for the Florida recount (see below).

Ferguson had some particularly good zings against the New York Times, who was very publicly absent from the soiree:

They thought this dinner undercut the credibility of the press, I thought Jason Blair and Judy Miller took care of that.

* * *

Shut the hell up NY Times you sanctimonius whining jerks!

Overheard at the party was Bunny Ranch owner Dennis Hof on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid “I know Harry very well. He’s a good guy.” I’m sure the Senator heartily appreciated that vote of confidence.

* * * UPDATE * * *

After eating at White Castle and escaping from Guantanamo Bay, Kumar apparently attended the WHCA dinner as well.

Thx to Shenanigans, Fishbowl DC, and TV Newser

We reluctantly pass along to you that the Houston Chronicle is reporting SCOTX Justice Medina’s wife has been re-indicted for arson relating to the fire that destroyed the couple’s home last year.

Prosecutor Vic Wisner said he didn’t expect to seek any other indictments in the case, which would effectively clear Justice Medina in the matter.

Thx to Political Junkie and the Houston Chronicle