Well, I was working off the Balkin guys' analysis. It's a bunch of left-leaning law professors, mainly at Yale I think. The person who wrote the blog post I was thinking of is Marty Lederman.
Here is an example. Here is an extract:
Quote:
The Justice Department is the part of the government that defines the law for the executive branch. For the White House counsel to defy its judgment on an important legal question is to put the rawest power ahead of the law.
The must-derided John Ashcroft, on the other hand, showed himself when it counted to be a man of courage and substance whom history will surely treat more kindly than did contemporary commentary. Few attorneys general get tested as Ashcroft did that night in 2004. One can disagree with him about a lot of things and still recognize the fact that ultimately, he passed the hardest test: From a hospital bed in intensive care, he stood up for the rule of law. More broadly, the Justice Department seems to have performed admirably across the board--from the OLC having taken its job seriously, to the willingness on the part of the department brass and Mueller to lose their jobs to defend the department's ability to determine the law for the executive branch.
|
So, to that observer, at least in this case Gonzalez was the villain, and the DOJ guys the good guys. Lederman, Balkin, Tamanaha and the others at that site have some pretty good insights. I don't always agree (which is true of just about any site I read) but they're always good, and more important, they are SANE. Not horrendously partisan and always thoughtful.