One of the odder outbreaks of outrage from conservative pundits is the horror expressed at the idea that people accused of being connected to the September 11 attacks would actually be put on trial.  Here's Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson (11/18/09) on Attorney General Eric Holder's "destructive" decision to prosecute Khalid Mohammed and other 9/11 suspects in an actual court:

There is one serious argument for this course: that a civilian court will provide greater legitimacy for the imposition of the death penalty than a military tribunal. But the guilt of these terrorists is not in question. And it is difficult to imagine that those repulsed or impressed by Khalid Sheik Mohammed's confessed crimes will care much about the procedures surrounding his sentencing.

Gerson seems to be saying in that last sentence that nobody actually cares about the rule of law.  That's not literally true, of course, but from the vitriol expressed toward the idea of  defendants having constitutional rights, you do get the idea that its stock is at a low ebb.

After giving a dubious account of the causes of the Democrats' 1994 electoral disaster, Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson (11/14/08) provides an inaccurate description of the Fairness Doctrine, which he calls

a federal regulation (overturned by the Reagan administration in 1987) requiring broadcast outlets to give equal time to opposing political viewpoints. Under this doctrine, three hours of Rush Limbaugh on a radio station would have to be balanced by three hours of his liberal equivalent. This may sound fair and balanced. But it is a classic case where the "unintended consequences" are so obvious that those consequences must be intended. It would destroy the profitability of conservative talk radio and lead other outlets to avoid political issues entirely--actually reducing the public discussion of controversial issues.

I have to say--if that's what the Fairness Doctrine was, then I would be against it. But it was never an equal-time rule; instead, it required broadcasters to provide some coverage of controversial issues and to make some provision for opposing views. In practice, the FCC would accept roughly a 5-to-1 ratio as providing adequate balance. Far from making conservative talk radio impossible, a talkshow format in which the host occasionally takes calls from listeners who disagree was an easy way for stations to fulfill their Fairness Doctrine obligations.

The genius of the Fairness Doctrine was that it balanced the broadcasters' First Amendment right to express their point of view with the reality that the government is granting a monopoly to license-holders to broadcast on a particular frequency--in effect saying that they and no one else has a right to express themselves on that particular street corner. The Fairness Doctrine says that every once in a while, you have to let someone else share the soapbox. I wonder why right-wing pundits find that so threatening?