I don’t have any problem with allowing law students to file an Amicus Brief [even out of time], but to elevate them above a bona fide Amicus for purposes of oral argument is both nuts and demeaning to the Court itself. But, I suspect that it is the proverbial pay back for Pepperdine’s agreeing to host the Court. Strange process.

In seeking permission from CAAF for Amicus status in support of Diaz, NACDL claimed a two-fold “interest” in the case:

“First, the issues pertain to a core Constitutional issue, the Sixth Amendment “Right to Present a Defense.” NACDL institutionally as well as its members have a significant interest in safeguarding that right on behalf of our clients. Second, this case involves issues under the federal Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. § 793, as well as security “classification” issues that arose at the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo [GTMO] Bay, Cuba.”

Noting that many of its members were either defending GTMO prisoners or were involved in on-going Espionage Act litigation.

And I totally agree that in this era of federal “belt tightening,” it is irresponsible for CAAF to spend appropriated funds for a winter trip to California [they are at Camp Pendleton the day after Diaz].

As you well know supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

I agree w/Excalibur’s comments*. So long as the school takes things seriously (which unfortunately does not always happen) the Outreach program serves an excellent purpose.

* But maintain that strange women lyin’ in ponds distributin’ swords is no basis for a system of government.

I’ve got to respect your honesty, I gave you the negative props you are seeking.

Did both Amici write on the same issue(s)?