Half empty or half full?

In a December 28 editorial, the Boston Globe notes that "in the month of December alone, Bush was rebuffed by three separate federal appeals courts, another federal judge, and the World Trade Organization."

The issues were

- the plan to allow polluting power companies to make major changes to their plants without making them cleaner, blocked by the DC Court of Appeals;
- Jose Padilla, who the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ordered be either charged with a crime or released;
- Guantanamo Bay "detentions," which the Ninth Circuit Court declared are likely in violation of international law;
- opening Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks to hundreds of snowmobilers, which a federal judge prevented as violating the "primary mandates, regulations, and policies" of the Park Service; and
- steel import tariffs, which did violate trade agreements and which Bush rescinded in the face of mounting domestic and foreign pressure.

Now, I can't say rescinding the tariffs was a good thing since they were imposed to protect a domestic industry and undone due to worship at the altar of The God of Free Trade, but it still was an area where Shrub was forced to back off.

So the question is, half empty (Bush and his cronies continue to try this bull) or half full (dammit, they are finally running up against some limits)? Frankly, I'm not sure, although I am just the tiniest bit relieved. But I suspect we haven't seen the half of it.