Let me direct your attention to Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health and Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 121 S.Ct. 1835 (2001). The opinion was written and delivered by the late Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist. The matter pertained to the payment of attorney fees to a prevailing party. The Supreme Court had not previously ruled on the precise definition to be accorded the term “prevailing party.”

To ascertain the meaning of this legal term of art, the Supreme Court looked to Black’s Law Dictionary.

The Court stated that its prior decisions were consistent with the dictionary’s definition. As a result it was adopted as the Court’s precise defintion to be accorded to the term “prevailing party”.

It appears that Black’s Law Dictionary is fine for the U.S. Supreme Court too. The above case was just one of numerous U.S. Supreme Court cases using Black’s Law Dictionary as a legal definition authority.

As a result, I agree with T.D’s assessment. The blogger’s reasoning does make sense.

He broke the law. The verdict was handed down by jury. And Bush quite obviously DOES not respect that jury or he wouldn’t have essentially said “fuck you” by commuting the sentence.

As for Clinton, I was against all those pardons as well. Justice doesn’t have party affiliations.

Why don’t we just get mad when ANY President takes the law into their own hands, instead of just a Republican one (or a Democratic one)?

Although let me point out that the reason the left (and myself) is so angry about Libby is because this pardon is only the latest in a long line of nose-thumbings made by Bush to the United States Justice System.

So fuck him.

Well just another Republican misstep to hang on their nominee in 2008…