The funny thing is that I’ve been linking to comments from professors who are either agnostic on the surveillance program or who actually think it was unconstitutional, illegal (due to FISA violation) or both. You should see what the defenders of the surveillance program have to say about the decision…[/quote]
Wow - been reading the responses. This opinion is getting no sympathy in its breadth of errors, conscious misstatement of the law, and results-oriented jurisprudence from all quarters. Oh, except for the the NYT editorial page.
Curiously, Bush critics maintain they are apopletic over violations of ‘separation of powers’ - but as the judiciary continues to venture into policymaking territory, the critics turn their head, whistle, and walk by like they never saw a thing.
Don’t you know that checks and balances only apply to conservatives or others taking legal positions that critics don’t like?[/quote]
Boston and Thunder,
It’s interesting to note the dichotomy of thought on the war. If your premise is: We aren’t in a real war.
Then, you come to the conclusion that the Executive is reaching.
Those of use who know that this is a war for survival, view this as a logical step in fighting an increasingly high-tech war.
It sounds like another activist judge attempting to legislate from the bench.
I’m looking forward to the heavy hitters getting involved.
Wow - been reading the responses. This opinion is getting no sympathy in its breadth of errors, conscious misstatement of the law, and results-oriented jurisprudence from all quarters. Oh, except for the the NYT editorial page.[/quote]
Yeah, that NYT editorial is laughable:
At least it’s in the opinion section, where it belongs – they have every right in the world to be utterly wrong in their own opinion pages.
But, that said, how ridiculous do they have to be to claim that this is a “careful, thoroughly grounded opinion”? Or that this opinion “eviscerated” any claims at all?
ADDENDUM:
Here’s the Washington Post editorial – note the contrast:
No one could consider the Washington Post editorial page an ally or supporter of the NSA’s wireless surveillance program, but they have a much more realistic view of the lay of the land than does the NYT. Yet another reason why the Washington Post is a superior paper, unless you happen to be looking for New York movie-time listings…
Wow - been reading the responses. This opinion is getting no sympathy in its breadth of errors, conscious misstatement of the law, and results-oriented jurisprudence from all quarters. Oh, except for the the NYT editorial page.
Yeah, that NYT editorial is laughable:
At least it’s in the opinion section, where it belongs – they have every right in the world to be utterly wrong in their own opinion pages.
But, that said, how ridiculous do they have to be to claim that this is a “careful, thoroughly grounded opinion”? Or that this opinion “eviscerated” any claims at all?[/quote]
Maybe one of the “new” T-Nation members wrote it. Sounds kind of similar.
I wonder if the right wingnuts would be defending the NSA wire taps if Kerry had won and was pulling this sh!t. The scary part is Kerry lost by 100K votes.
My guess is the GOP would have started impeachment hearings already and I would be applauding the GOP for doing their job.
The right wingnuttery on this site exemplifies intellectually dishonest.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
I wonder if the right wingnuts would be defending the NSA wire taps if Kerry had won and was pulling this sh!t. The scary part is Kerry lost by 100K votes.
My guess is the GOP would have started impeachment hearings already and I would be applauding the GOP for doing their job.
The right wingnuttery on this site exemplifies intellectually dishonest.[/quote]
You are missing the point - you have to distinguish what the government can do versus what the government should do.
You don’t have to like a policy - but dislike doesn’t equate to unconstitutional. You can’t go saying a judge got something right or didn’t all based on your political agreement or disagreement with a policy.
Judges should only be concerned with whether or not the government can do the act in question.
If the government can do the act in question, and you think it is a bad idea - call your Congressman.
As for being intellectually dishonest - don’t have the audacity to claim such when you don’t even have basic civics down.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
I wonder if the right wingnuts would be defending the NSA wire taps if Kerry had won and was pulling this sh!t. The scary part is Kerry lost by 100K votes.
My guess is the GOP would have started impeachment hearings already and I would be applauding the GOP for doing their job.
The right wingnuttery on this site exemplifies intellectually dishonest.[/quote]
OK marmadogg,
I’m game for your intellectual honesty.
Why don’t you expand on how the program “obviously” violates the 4th Amendment – which would be more than the judge did?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
I wonder if the right wingnuts would be defending the NSA wire taps if Kerry had won and was pulling this sh!t. The scary part is Kerry lost by 100K votes.
My guess is the GOP would have started impeachment hearings already and I would be applauding the GOP for doing their job.
The right wingnuttery on this site exemplifies intellectually dishonest.
You are missing the point - you have to distinguish what the government can do versus what the government should do.
You don’t have to like a policy - but dislike doesn’t equate to unconstitutional. You can’t go saying a judge got something right or didn’t all based on your political agreement or disagreement with a policy.
Judges should only be concerned with whether or not the government can do the act in question.
If the government can do the act in question, and you think it is a bad idea - call your Congressman.
As for being intellectually dishonest - don’t have the audacity to claim such when you don’t even have basic civics down.[/quote]
I think the president “should” obey the law. Don’t you, and just about everybody agrees he broke the law (FISA). The fourth aside, congress has the power to regulate the president, FISA does just that.
I’d expect bush and co to hang on for dear life to inherent authority, cause the AUMF lie just aint gonna work not even with scotus. If it got to scotus i’d say 5-4 it’d get knocked down based on bush’s previous knockdown. But, alas it’ll probably never happen…