From our March issue: Nick Gillespie talks to Fox News' Judge Andrew Napolitano.
Reason Magazine
Most Popular Stories
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Romney Most Electable Candidate, Yet Gingrich in Statistical Tie Among GOP Voters (1.31)
- Explaining Newt’s Second Surge (1.26)
- George Washington Would Beat Out Romney as Richest President; John Kerry Would Have, Too (1.25)
- New Poll: Americans Aren't Ready for Another War (1.20)
- 2012 Election Match Up: Romney Wins, Paul Might (1.13)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
|3.14.05 @ 11:00AM|#
I was struck by how strongly I agreed with Judge Napolitano about 90% of the time, and how strongly I disgreed the remaining 10%. He seems a pretty close ideological match for Nat Hentoff.
|3.14.05 @ 11:33AM|#
I was under the impression that our freedoms were born of the actions of the military. Natural Law? the individual as the basic unit of society? Blasphemous!
I agree with the Judge of the obscene abuses of governmental power at every level. Anyone with even the smallest nugget of authority in the system seems to abuse it.
As far as PATRIOT goes, what's amazing to me is how easily people can be talked into throwing away their rights. Who would have thought that Milton William Cooper might have been right?
|3.14.05 @ 1:55PM|#
Napolitano: I had a realization that many [law enforcement agents] were lying.
What could he possibly have said that needed to be edited?
Otherwise, I'm down with his Constitutional "fixes."
|3.14.05 @ 2:04PM|#
Yeah, when I read this in the print edition I was disturbed by the number of bracketed passages myself.
|3.14.05 @ 2:15PM|#
Napolitano: I had a realization that many [law enforcement agents] were lying.
Adam: What could he possibly have said that needed to be edited?
He probably said: "I had a realization that many of them were lying." And it was probably clear to Nick, in the context of what followed, whom Napolitano was referring to as "them," but it would be momentarily confusing to a reader of the literal transcript.
Depending on the speaker, you might be surprised how jumbled and unclear a literal transcription of a conversation can appear to be, even though it seemed perfectly clear at the time.
|3.14.05 @ 3:06PM|#
Does the good judge discuss "fact bargaining" at all?
Larry A|3.14.05 @ 3:32PM|#
David: [I was under the impression that our freedoms were born of the actions of the military. Natural Law? the individual as the basic unit of society? Blasphemous!]
Yeah, I know what you're saying. But I'm reminded of how a law enforcement friend of mine described his moonlight job at a supermarket. "There's the sign that says, 'No Parking,'" he said. "I'm the sign that says, "This Means You."
Properly used, the US armed services are our "This Means You" warning.
|3.14.05 @ 5:26PM|#
I agreed with almost all of what Napolitano had to say. It's rare to find anyone in public office who gets it.
|3.15.05 @ 2:57AM|#
No questions about the other part of the First Amendment. I imagine I wouldn't care for his answers.
|3.15.05 @ 11:42AM|#
Napolitano's position on abortion (abortion doctors should be charged with Murder One) could hardly be more extreme. Made me lose quite a bit of respect for him. And I'm hardly a pro-choice extremist.