ERIC POSNER: “The legalists in American law schools rage at the Bush administration for claiming constitutional authority to wage the war on terrorism rather than going to Congress but are indifferent when the Bush administration cites, as authority to address the current financial crisis, a statute enacted by Congress seventy years ago and a judge-made doctrine that permits agencies to interpret ambiguous statutes expansively. Is it really so difficult to see that these two cases are the same from the perspective of the rule-of-law values that the rule of law is supposed to advance: public debate and authorization of policy by a representative body for the purpose of addressing events that it is actually aware of? I say that you have to approve of both or neither.”

Plus, an I-told-you-so from Gordon Smith.

UPDATE: A cheerful perspective on economic developments: “These are very good times for me, selling bottled alcohol at the retail level.” It’s all what you invest in, I guess . . . .