There actually are a few Congress-critters who made a good living at being courtroom lawyers before they moved to Washington, and I know that they must have honed those questioning skills. But when they have a public office and they're in front of TV cameras, they can't help making speeches. They can neither ask a series of short, tight leading questions (to commit a witness, usually preparatory to springing a trap) or a thoughtful open-ended, non-leading question (to actually find out something useful).

During his confirmation hearings, Chief Justice Roberts earned some special kind of sainthood by passing up countless opportunities to say: "That question is the stupidest thing I've heard come out of a human mouth since, oh, Sen. ____'s stupid question __ minutes ago, but it 's still in my all-time top 30." (Roberts' patience shows his consummate skill and remarkable experience as an appellate oral advocate, a profession in which one emphatically may not succeed unless one assiduously conceals his reactions to stupid questions from nominal authorities.)

If I were called to testify before Congress, I suspect I'd behave pretty much like Addington. I, too, suffer from an inability to suffer fools gladly. Conyers and his ilk are pathetic.

Gee, I wonder if the democrats tone might not have made him a bit of a testy witness.

Again... Gee, Ya Think?

During the course of the hearing, Congressman and Obama Superdelegate William Delahunt (MA-10) asked Mr. Addington about water boarding. Mr. Addington responded that he would not go into details because Al Qaeda is probably watching.

Congressman Delahunt's response was, "I'm glad they finally have a chance to see you."

Mr. Delahunt now denies he meant what he said. But what he clearly said was "I'm glad they finally have a chance to see you." Al Qaeda now knows the face of one of the men who relentlessly pursues its henchmen and deals with their interrogations. Mr. Addington volunteered for public service, not a death sentence with Congressional encouragement. Mr. Delahunt is both a vile liar and a cowardly lion willing to roar down at Mr. Addington while encouraging terrorists to do his dirty work in a war he has been ineffective at stopping.

Addington's responses were more than justified, given the conditions.

My God, Alex, just read the Constitution. Article II is pretty clear as to what powers the President or executive branch has. All those powers are vested in the President. I don't care what some liberal court says.

Actually, some federal agencies, while nominally in the executive branch, are actually acting on authority delegated to them by Congress and controlled by Article I. Additionally, other parts of the Constitution allow both Congress and the Courts to constrain Presidential action. Article II does not exist in a vacuum, and in order to be fully understood it has to be read in the context of the whole Constitution.

PD -

Federalist No. 70 is about the need to have one president, instead of an executive committee, not about the power of the Presidency. See Federalist No. 69 for more of Hamilton's views.

If he doesn't want to discuss them now, perhaps he'll be more willing to once experiencing them.

Methinks Milbank may well be biased.

Gee.... Ya think?

Methinks Milbank may well be biased.

Phil Carter is a hostile witness for anyone in the Bush Administration.

Having said that. I watched part of the testimony, and from the start the Democratic part of the Congressional panel treated these guys with disdain.

As far as the need to fulfill Congressional oversight, you do not need an open hearing to achieve this.

A true outrage:
“I’m glad they finally have a chance to see you.”
That was Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA-10), also an Obama superdelegate, responding to the VP’s Chief of Staff David Addington’s comment during a House Subcom...

Thank you for a superb post. You said everything that needed to be said.

Indeed. As I understand it, "unitary executive" theory holds that Article II confers all of the powers of that branch unto the president and that the bureaucracy therefore is subject to the commands of the president. It's not a particularly novel idea, really.

That's the theory, but it's actually pretty readily refuted by reference to court cases, the Administrative Procedures Act and some other ready commonsense concepts. Maybe I'll write an article on that...