As Will Bunch at the Philadelphia Daily News puts it:

The Inquirer thus handed Yoo a loud megaphone on what was once a hallowed piece of real estate in American journalism — to write on the very subjects that have now led Justice Department investigators to reportedly recommend disbarment proceedings against Yoo and has led international prosecutors as well as millions of politically engaged Americans to consider the Episcopal Academy graduate worthy of charging with war crimes.

Here’s the Inquirer editorial page editor’s response:

John Yoo has written freelance commentaries for The Inquirer since 2005, however he entered into a contract to write a monthly column in late 2008. I won’t discuss the compensation of anyone who writes for us. Of course, we know more about Mr. Yoo’s actions in the Justice Department now than we did at the time we contracted him. But we did not blindly enter into our agreement. He’s a Philadelphian, and very knowledgeable about the legal subjects he discusses in his commentaries. Our readers have been able to get directly from Mr. Yoo his thoughts on a number of subjects concerning law and the courts, including measures taken by the White House post-9/11. That has promoted further discourse, which is the objective of newspaper commentary.

Uh, maybe. But I tend to agree with Bunch on this:

[W]hile promoting public discourse is a goal of newspaper commentary, it should not be the main objective. The higher calling for an American newspaper should be promoting and maintaining our sometimes fragile democracy, the very thing that Yoo and his band of torture advocates very nearly shredded in a few short years. Quite simply, by handing Yoo a regularly scheduled platform for his viewpoint, the Inquirer is telling its readers that Yoo’s ideas — especially that torture is not a crime against the very essence of America — are acceptable.

Palin was a veritable fountain of recent Supreme Court trivia when Carl Cameron asked her if she could name any decisions she disagreed with, other than Roe vs. Wade.

Palin cited Kennedy vs. Louisiana, in which the high court held that a death sentence for a man convicted of the rape of a child constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Palin took issue with the ruling because Louisiana’s “rights were taken away by the Supreme Court.”

She also disagrees with  “the Kelo case,” or Kelo vs. New London — a now-famous eminent domain ruling — because “property rights are so precious.”

Finally, she disputed the recent Exxon vs. Baker decision, which directly affected her state while she was governor.

She did not refer to it by name, instead saying, “the Exxon Valdez oil spill — the siding with the oil company, as they decimated Alaska’s coastline…on the punitive damage that was to be awarded.”

Cameron also allowed Palin another stab at answering which newspapers and magazines she reads. He said her answer was, “The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and…The Economist magazine.”

Wow. Nothing to be embarrassed about there. If she’s so well-informed, why didn’t she just say that the first time?

UPDATE: Here’s the video, thanks to TPM.