Here is an interesting take down of Judge (or "Judge") Andrew Napolitano, frequent commentator on Fox News and Fox Radio, by Andrew McCarthy:

Napolitano was once a midlevel state-court judge in New Jersey. Assuming for argument's sake that this experience is a sure sign of actual legal expertise, it would be an exceedingly narrow one: to wit, he might be thought an authority on the constitution and laws of the Garden State. Fox, however, has opportunistically chosen to ignore the "New Jersey" modifier in his former title and focus myopically on the "Judge" part. The network has adopted a convention whereby all Fox News correspondents refer to Napolitano on the air not by name but as "Judge." He then proceeds to expound with glib certainty on all manner of legal issues, including matters of federal law, for which he appears to have little familiarity.

McCarthy continues on why Napolitano is so wrong in his opinions on the prosecution of Lynne Stewart, lawyer of Omar Abdel Rahman, said opinions recently published in the NY Times. One might assume that an expert (or "expert") hired by a network or newspaper might confine their comments to subject matter in which they were, in fact, experts. One would apparently be wrong to make that assumption.

The Times ought to be embarrassed. Fox News ought to be more embarrassed.

Yep. Read the whole thing. It is fascinating.