Interesting hour long discussion on CSPAN between Andrew Napolitano and Ralph Nader. The topic was Napolitano’s most recent book, “The Lies the Government Told You.” I actually caught the CSPAN broadcast on Sunday night by pure accident(channel surfing). However, I thought is was a re-run. Apparently not. Quite a bit of discussion has popped up in the blogosphere, particularly regarding Napolitano’s comments that Bush/Cheney should be criminally indicted for constitutional crimes. Is this news? He’s been saying that for years. I think this has only become of interest to partisan tards because he’s become Glenn Beck’s guest host. I don’t watch Glenn Beck, but I imagine Napolitano probably does behave himself there.
In terms of Napolitano’s TV show on Fox, Freedom Watch, when it was internet streaming only, I can say he openly expressed these opinions and had a plethora of libertarian guests who did as well. It was, in some sense, a libertarian debating society. Since moving to actual Cable TV, however, it’s not the same show. It’s become much more of a show of establishment guests and politicians, with a token libertarian or two, debating the “GOP Tea Party” agenda. It’s not particularly compelling; although, last week’s show, had a bit of interesting bit, when the Democratic Party round table strategist and pollster, in commenting on the short debate between Ron Paul and John Bolton over Afghanistan, announced that Obama and the Dem Party were in complete harmony with Bolton. And after praising Lindsey Graham’s patriotism, the Democrat expressed his glee over the hope the Democrats could politically exploit a war/anti-war division in the GOP. Not particularly surprising to me, but I suppose it probably should have made some news that a Dem strategist is openly articulating that Obama embraces John Bolton, whereas, in the case of Steele, a recorded off-the-record bullshit comment raised holy hell.
Returning to Napolitano and Nader, and disregarding all the partisan hackery commentary nonsense, if you watch the video, you will note that the primary thrust of the discussion between the two, progressive and libertarian, is that the Big Government Regulatory, National Security State has wiped out the court system as a means of legal redress of grievances against institutional power. If Roderick Long thinks this was a lovefest, that was what the lovefest was about. Both, despite, political differences, viewed the advocate lawyer class as the great line of defense for ensuring a liberal order, on a whole host of issues. Napolitano, in particular, articulated a case for Tort Law that goes against the grain against conservatives and Reason/Cato libertarians(Napolitano made the case that he was a true north libertarian, except on the issue of abortion. ). The Reason/Cato crowd wants a controlled tort system and an eviscerated regulatory system, which opens them up to legitimate criticism. The likes of Nader want a robust regulatory class along with a robust tort system. Of course, from class theory, the function of the regulatory class is to reduce exposure from tort. The BP Oil spill is a perfect example.
Both Napolitano and Nader agreed that law is what the political class says it is and argued the essential need for a heroic advocate attorney class to counter this. They also mourned that there is no such heroic class anymore. Nader, in particular, reveled in the lack of self-censorship on the part of Napolitano in documenting many of the despicable flaws of the likes of Washington and Lincoln.
Frankly, I watched two expert lawyers, progressive and libertarian, use the pretext of government lies to eviscerate the so-called rule of law. The real world of law doesn’t work like what is taught in law school. No shit…