Comments on: Can you hear the Constitution now?

Can you hear the Constitution now?

orthogonality — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 09:48:34 -0800

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor has ruled that warrantless wiretapping by the Bush Administration's National Security Agency is unconstitutional, saying it violates rights to free speech and privacy. Judge Taylor, a veteran of the civil rights movement and the first black female federal district judge in the U.S. 6th Circuit, was appointed to the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan by President Carter. Legal experts expect the decision to be overturned by the 6th Circuit sitting en banc. Background on the case by Glenn Greenwald: "The theory of the lawsuit -- [is that warrantless wiretapping's] mere existence deters citizens from freely exercising their free speech rights".

By: Remy

Remy — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 09:50:32 -0800

As pointed out by ThinkProgress, the National Review has already called this a "terrorist-friendly ruling". What was that Ben Franklin quote? I can't seem to remember it.

By: NationalKato

NationalKato — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 09:52:15 -0800

If this is a 'terrorist-friendly ruling,' I think I'm starting to like these terrorist dudes.

By: i_am_a_Jedi

i_am_a_Jedi — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 09:53:35 -0800

Man, I bet America used to kick ass back when it was free.

By: solid-one-love

solid-one-love — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 09:58:19 -0800

America is still free. It's just that you're not cleared to know this week's definition of "free".

By: agent

agent — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:00:28 -0800

Man, I bet America used to kick ass back when it was free. Nah, the customer service was terrible before they moved to a subscription-based model. The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets. !, what a load of crap! Proof by "just because" is valid?

By: NationalKato

NationalKato — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:02:54 -0800

Always worked for my Mom.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:03:06 -0800

Is surveillance "warrantless" if the law prevents you, the citizen, from even knowing if there is a warrant or not?

By: hex1848

hex1848 — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:04:00 -0800

Can we start the impeachment process now? Or does W still need to get a BJ?

By: delmoi

delmoi — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:04:53 -0800

"The theory of the lawsuit -- [is that warrantless wiretapping's] mere existence deters citizens from freely exercising their free speech rights". Not that I support warrentless wiretapping, but that seems like a strange argument to me. America is still free. It's just that you're not cleared to know this week's definition of "free". Well, the president considers Iraq to be "free" now so I'm not really sure the term has any value at all anymore.

By: Mr_Zero

Mr_Zero — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:06:33 -0800

Chancellor Sutler is very displeased.

By: sonofsamiam

sonofsamiam — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:08:50 -0800

Is surveillance "warrantless" if the law prevents you, the citizen, from even knowing if there is a warrant or not? You raise a good point, but the administration has not asserted that their warrantless wiretapping program is legal under USAPATRIOT. Their position is sort of two-pronged: 1) FISA is unconstitutional and the president is not required to follow laws he thinks are unconstitutional and 2) the president can do this anyway because wiretapping is an executive function which cannot be restricted by congress. These arguments support each other, but could be made separately.

By: NationalKato

NationalKato — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:09:32 -0800

An interesting comment from orthogonality's second link, taken from an article written prior to this ruling: "Given the composition of the 6th Circuit and its previous rulings in related areas, it seems more likely to favor national security over civil liberties if that issue is squarely presented," said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia. "And that's what this case is all about."

By: clevershark

clevershark — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:16:09 -0800

Mr_Zero writes "Chancellor Sutler is very displeased." Surely you mean Skeletor? "People of Eternia! I stand before the Great Eye of the galaxy. Chosen by destiny by the powers of Greyskull!"

By: allelopath

allelopath — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:16:28 -0800

Ben Franklin you are thinking of may be: They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither ...

By: Unregistered User

Unregistered User — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:51:43 -0800

Tyranny of Words the Law and the courts. America has reach the backside of the event horizon of organised, institutionalised corruption and fraud on every level. Where protection rackets, embezzlement, larceny, confiscation, entrapment, misappropriation, and rico crimes, as well as murder have become the norm; by bullies, fraudsters, pervert soul sick class elites, politicians with their sykophants, lobbys, lawyers of the Kelptomania class who run everything. A litigation nation where truth is treason, justice is a mockery, and liberty is for sale to the highest bidder, where action of the State, arising from suspicion and not from proof, has degenerated into the satisfaction of vendettas by a "coin-operated congress", a "blue-blooded-aristocratic Senate" and finally, a power hungry blood thirsty executive branch- a general system of tyranny, all in the name of "public safety." The general public means nothing to them, we have been and are being, carved out like a pumpkin, the seeds spit in our faces, while they laugh at our poverty. "The essential political choice is the same as it always was: "freedom or security" nor, is the blame entirely with the warmongers, plutocrats, and demagogues. If a people permit exploitation and regimentation in any name they deserve their slavery. The law has always been perverted to serve the "haves" and not the "haves-not", only not always as heavy handed as it is now. We have made progress in the recent past with "the New Deal", labor unions, civil rights, and the constitution. Only within the last few decades have the ruling elites pushed back, with their hatred of liberal democracy. What once existied in ancient Athens - now hold sway in America and Britain , (it's transatlantic and trans-national now ) where powerful and corrupt individuals, organizations and corporations are routinely using threats of vexatious and malicious litigation to bully and oppress ordinary innocent and working class people. Coercion seems to be covering-up greater crimes committed by these individuals / organizations. Their corrupt misuse of Law takes the form of restraint of trade and prevention of free speech, eminent domain, KGB style surveillance, tax cuts for the top 1%, hidden fiat/poll-taxes, money laundering in off shore bankings and usury interests and loans. All nothing more than hypocrisy, hiding behind law. Welcome to the New America. The YoYo economy of the House of Bush.

By: brain_drain

brain_drain — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:55:41 -0800

Here's the opinion. [PDF]

By: Ironmouth

Ironmouth — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:56:15 -0800

Wow, Christopher Hitchens is a named plaintiff. I thought he was completely over on the dark side.

By: blucevalo

blucevalo — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:01:03 -0800

Franklin was not the originator of the "neither liberty nor safety" quote that's always attributed to him.

By: sonofsamiam

sonofsamiam — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:01:07 -0800

He knows which way the wind is blowing, just like George Will.

By: squirrel

squirrel — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:01:54 -0800

This is great news, 6th circuit aside. The real question is how will this play in SCOTUS. Great title, orthogonality!

By: NationalKato

NationalKato — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:04:43 -0800

Tell us how you really feel, Unregistered User.

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:08:59 -0800

"Can we start the impeachment process now? Or does W still need to get a BJ?" He definitely needs to get a BJ, but that's not important right now.

By: brain_drain

brain_drain — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:12:51 -0800

"The theory of the lawsuit -- [is that warrantless wiretapping's] mere existence deters citizens from freely exercising their free speech rights". Not that I support warrentless wiretapping, but that seems like a strange argument to me. It is an unusual argument, but there's no other practical way to bring this lawsuit right now. No one knows exactly who has been a target of warrantless wiretaps, so the most direct victims can't sue yet. So some creative lawyers came up with this "chilling" theory to establish that there are other victims of the program. It's a matter of "standing," a doctrine that requires plaintiffs who bring federal lawsuits to show that they have a concrete interest in the outcome of the case. The court here found that the "chilling" theory was sufficient to establish standing.

By: Pastabagel

Pastabagel — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:13:48 -0800

The law has always been perverted to serve the "haves" and not the "haves-not", only not always as heavy handed as it is now. Um, what? The law used to explicity restrict voting to the "haves", and there used to be no income tax. And in the 70's when income taxes on the rich were very high, the loopholes were very large. The problem with blaming Bush for everything is that he's gone in two years, guaranteed. What you are failing to see is the fact that both parties are complict in bending the law for the powerful because the powerful are the ones who donate money. Aetting the Lewinsky affair aside the Democrats didn't run a lily white administration either.

By: allelopath

allelopath — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:16:46 -0800

>>Franklin was not the originator of the "neither liberty nor safety" quote that's always attributed to him. I suspected as much...so who said if first?

By: sonofsamiam

sonofsamiam — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:20:27 -0800

And in the 70's when income taxes on the rich were very high, the loopholes were very large. Larger than now? I find that very hard to believe.

By: pruner

pruner — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:21:09 -0800

methinks it's time for a "batshitunconstitutional" tag.

By: saslett

saslett — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:22:07 -0800

Orthogonality, I don't think legal commentators agree that the 6th Circuit will hear the appeal en banc without allowing a three-judge panel to issue a ruling first. If memory serves, the appeal from this case will be the first time any federal appellate court has had the opportunity to rule on the constitutionality of the NSA wiretapping program. Typically, on issues of first impression such as this one, appellate courts prefer to have the panel develop the record further before hearing the case en banc. Judge Taylor is only a district judge in the Eastern District of Michigan, which happens to be in the 6th Circuit. She is not a 6th Circuit appellate judge. These folks are. That Judge Taylor is a district judge who sits in the 6th Circuit is only relevant in determining to which which appellate court her decisions are appealed.

By: Unregistered User

Unregistered User — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:25:47 -0800

This nothing but a pesky ruling and it's merely a matter of time before it it overturned, the criminals running this country mouth the words "freedom" and "democracy" quite frequently but if you set that to the side and look at what they actually do it's obvious they don't give a single solitary fuck about any of it. They work tirelessly to undermine and circumvent both domestically and abroad our law and international law only a completely gullible rube would believe our foreign policy has fuck all to do with freedom or democracy or safety for that matter. Of course, Bush will just ignore this injunction as he has all others, knowing in his misguided heart his signing statement lets him do whatever he wants. And there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it.

By: NationalKato

NationalKato — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:28:15 -0800

I suspected as much...so who said if first? posted by allelopath If you read blucevalo's second link, you'll note that while some researchers attribute diplomat Richard Jackson as the author of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania (1759), the book which contained the longer quote "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," many still believe Franklin wrote the statement. But I'm just copying what already exists in that link.

By: KevinSkomsvold

KevinSkomsvold — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:29:10 -0800

Unregistered user: See here.

By: sonofsamiam

sonofsamiam — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:30:25 -0800

And there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it. We'll see. I had dinner with one of the hardest-core Republicans I know the other night and he had changed his tune considerably since the last time we spoke some months ago. I am finding that even among the hard core of middle-aged white men, Bush and Republicans in general are increasingly unpopular. For instance, he was not happy that only three Republicans out of that whole lot voted against the national ID.

By: digaman

digaman — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:33:18 -0800

Goodness, now we have terrorists posing as judges! What next. Luckily, the fearless patriots at Redstate.com are already on the case. Their view: Democracy = a suicide pact. I can't wait for Anne Coulter or Michelle Malkin to coin some net-buzzy term for the post-democratic American state. After all, the term "democracy" is biased toward the Democrat Party. Wake up people!!

By: pardonyou?

pardonyou? — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:36:18 -0800

I've met Judge Taylor a few times, and practiced before her a few more. She's very pleasant and soft-spoken, and not at all a raving ideologue. She's an excellent judge, and her opinion will be given serious regard by the 6th Circuit on appeal (and saslett is right -- it will have to be heard by a three-judge panel first). That's not to say it will affirm, but I don't think it's a slam-dunk reversal, either.

By: Pastabagel

Pastabagel — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:37:57 -0800

I am finding that even among the hard core of middle-aged white men, Bush and Republicans in general are increasingly unpopular.. posted by sonofsamiam at 2:30 PM EST on August 17 [+] [!] This is one of the reasons I think the Republicans keep the white house in 2008. You'll get a republican outsider (no, not mccain) speaking more to the small govt wing of the party and criticizing the adminisration on its war mishandling, big brother type policies, energy issues, etc. The democrats will be, per standard operating procedure, utterly useless.

By: Pastabagel

Pastabagel — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:44:14 -0800

Their view: Democracy = a suicide pact. posted by digaman at 2:33 PM EST on August 17 [+] [!] That's a fine example of nutpicking!

By: Mitheral

Mitheral — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:46:45 -0800

"The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets." So the Authority is secret. Funny that I thought the constitution was a public document. Didn't realise they'd slipped in some secret amendments granting additional powers to the president.

By: scrump

scrump — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:47:26 -0800

Okay, you know, Unregistered User, enough already. MeTa.

By: Unregistered User

Unregistered User — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:47:55 -0800

I am not merely blaming Bush, but Bush flanked by members of the Cabinet he is nothing more than a symptom of a much darker deeper problem. He and his ilk. Bush himself is nohing more than a potemkin puppet. It's his VP that really runs the show. Like a self-healing/self-replicating typical network - in this case, of neo-Nixon gangsters/criminals- the rise of Rove's Republic will carry on the mandate, just as the 'net tends to interpret corruption as damage, and routs around it, so too does the doctrine. A memetic phenotype, i.e. an individual's implementation of a meme, can -in principle - continue to replicate for as long as the brain it lives in is functioning. The most likely strategy is to force a sudden loss of interest in the field the meme belongs to, when the ideas held by the host differ to much from the ideas held by other hosts of the same meme. "The enduring legacy of politicians like Thurmond, Wallace and Helms, Delay, Gingrich [Nixon, Reagan] etc..seems be the meme of a distinctively Southern style of cultural/memetic politics, transplanted to national politics as a whole. These people having been jocking for power for twenty, thirty, even fourty years, The same players (read: wardens) that were there 20, 30, even 40 years ago are playing the same notes, all be it, with different keys as yesteryear. Bush, his ilk, the Cheney's, Rummy's, all the same dinks as when we were playing tag and spin the bottle and kickball and swiming and, and... I have long given up on hoping/thinking our "leaders" are there to do the peoples biz niz, and the system that is in place now is as stagnate as the dead sea. They are not there to lead, they are there to control. Both parties.

By: digaman

digaman — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:54:07 -0800

Pastabagel, I'm a registered user on Redstate.com thankyouverymuch, and that quote is typical, not extraordinary. Quote of the day, from the judge's decision [PDF]: "The Government appears to argue here that, pursuant to the penumbra of Constitutional language in Article II, and particularly because the President is designated Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, he has been granted the inherent power to violate not only the laws of the Congress but the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, itself. "We must first note that the Office of the Chief Executive has itself been created, with its powers, by the Constitution. There are no hereditary Kings in America and no power not created by the Constitution. So all 'inherent power' must derive from that Constitution."

By: [expletive deleted]

[expletive deleted] — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:59:40 -0800

UU, GYOFB, SRSLY

By: gottabefunky

gottabefunky — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:03:43 -0800

Just watched V for Vendetta last night - in a decade or two that's going to be closer to a documentary.

By: digaman

digaman — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:06:59 -0800

ACLU Wins One for the Terrorists

By: Liquidwolf

Liquidwolf — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:26:50 -0800

Here's my favorite part from that 'ACLU Wns one for the Terrorists" piece. "Civil rights absolutism is cold comfort when jihadists are able to rain down death and carnage on our cities and communities." If this person is that paranoid and delusional about 'Jihad" maybe he should lock himself in a bomb shelter and let the rest of us continue to live free. Don't any of these fools think it's a little "unamerican" to give up civil liberties?

By: digaman

digaman — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:32:50 -0800

Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, patriot.

By: Pastabagel

Pastabagel — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:40:20 -0800

Don't any of these fools think it's a little "unamerican" to give up civil liberties? posted by Liquidwolf at 3:26 PM EST on August 17 [+] [!] They think it's worse to be weak. Fear of weakness trumps everything. The question to ask these people is whether they prefer order or liberty. The correct answer is to attack the questions underlying assumption. And, digaman, I was actually refering to Redstate.com as being the nut out of the universe of rightwing blogs. And why register there?

By: snofoam

snofoam — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:43:04 -0800

The administration will probably continue doing it anyway, I believe it's covered by standard unconstitutional arguments. So, not really very exciting.

By: NationalKato

NationalKato — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:43:13 -0800

From CNN's continuing coverage: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, said he backs the government's appeal of the ruling. "Terrorists are the real threat to our constitutional and democratic freedoms, not the law enforcement and intelligence tools used to keep America safe," Frist said in a statement. "We need to strengthen, not weaken, our ability to foil terrorist plots before they can do us harm. I encourage swift appeal by the government and quick reversal of this unfortunate decision." [emphasis mine]

By: TetrisKid

TetrisKid — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:46:42 -0800

"The administration will probably continue doing it anyway" Sigh... even though it sounds Alex Jone-like. I agree.

By: oaf

oaf — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:53:29 -0800

They think it's worse to be weak. Fear of weakness trumps everything. Or they claim that life trumps liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

By: eriko

eriko — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:01:22 -0800

Fear of weakness trumps everything. For the vast majority, it is just fear. They are cowards. Start calling them that. Whenever they whine about a terrorist attack, look them in the eye, and ask them "Why are you such a coward?"

By: NationalKato

NationalKato — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:12:22 -0800

Precisely, eriko.

By: sonofsamiam

sonofsamiam — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:16:14 -0800

Terrorists are the real threat to our constitutional and democratic freedoms, not the law enforcement and intelligence tools used to keep America safe This program is not a law enforcement tool, it is a law avoidance tool.

By: winks007

winks007 — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:17:04 -0800

Unregistered User, you ROCK!

By: Unregistered User

Unregistered User — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:23:11 -0800

Abu G, weighs in at CNN... "Attorney General Alberto Gonzales defends eavesdropping program as effective, adding "We believe that the program is lawful."

By: prostyle

prostyle — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:35:20 -0800

Whenever they whine about a terrorist attack, look them in the eye, and ask them "Why are you such a coward?" Offer them this wager: I'll pay for your funeral services and donate the rest of my funds to your family when you die of a terrorist attack on US soil. You pay me for every day that I continue to exist under this scizophrenic administration. We'll see who runs out of money first.

By: EarBucket

EarBucket — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:37:23 -0800

Fuckin' A.

By: Unregistered User

Unregistered User — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:42:47 -0800

Offer them this wager:... But, didn't Jr. say, they had stopped ten terrorist attacks sometime back?

By: null terminated

null terminated — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:55:43 -0800

I don't think it's cowardice, I think it's blindness. I knew quite a few republicans who didn't' care the Clinton got a blow job, only that he violated the "rule of law" (lying blah blah). Where's the "rule of law" when it matters? I'm fine with conservatives being conservatives and liberals being liberals, but why can't both sides just pick some principles and stick to them? Whenever they whine about a terrorist attack, look them in the eye, and ask them "Why are you such a coward?" constructive.

By: NationalKato

NationalKato — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:55:47 -0800

But, didn't Jr. say, they had stopped ten terrorist attacks sometime back? Bush confuses 'stopping terrorist attacks' with 'gaining intel of a possible attack and acting on it.' The two are not always the same. Stopping a terrorist attack would mean the terrorists were boarding the planes or planting the bombs or whatever when they caught them. You know, John McLane shit. Learning about terrorist plots and stopping them in 'pre-production' is something I'm sure our law enforcement has been doing for decades.

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:12:16 -0800

Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, patriot. Holy crap she is teh black! Digaman, have the attacks and comparisons to Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Cynthia McKinney, etc. started yet?

By: Fupped Duck

Fupped Duck — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:18:49 -0800

what Ericko says

By: mrmojoflying

mrmojoflying — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:29:10 -0800

Since when did the rule of law keep anyone from doing anything they could get away with?

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:44:09 -0800

constructive. Probably not, agreed, but true nonetheless.

By: eriko

eriko — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:52:11 -0800

I don't think it's cowardice, I think it's blindness. No, it's cowardice. When somebody uses the "When they hit the next plane, train, building" argument, what they aren't saying aloud is "and I'm in it." These are the same people who drive their kids to school, even though life has become so safe for kids that they're having trouble coping with adulthood. In other news, the compelling arguments against this ruling are apparently that the Judge is a black Carter Appointee, therefore, she probably gets her paycheck straight from the Anthrax Mailer and Osama Bin Laden. Speaking of which, where are the Anthrax Mailer and Osama, anyway?

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:57:40 -0800

The Anthrax Mailer was a deeply programmed CIA agent and loose end who was "tied up", "deprogrammed" and "ventilated" once he had served his patriotic duty. /favoriteconspiracytheory

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:59:08 -0800

A little scientific investigation into the Anthrax Mailer...

By: eriko

eriko — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:59:37 -0800

Constructive Much more so than bowing to their fears. The latest threat has turned out to be a complete dud. The only question is was it just stupidity, or outright fraud for political gain. Fuck being nice to the cowards who are enabling these bastards -- both the bastards abroad, and the bastards in DC.

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:00:45 -0800

"If this person is that paranoid and delusional about 'Jihad" maybe he should lock himself in a bomb shelter..." - posted by Liquidwolf Surely he volunteered to serve right after 9/11....right? I mean, y'know... Nice to see this ruling. I'd consider myself a "rule of law" conservative. I didn't have much trouble with Clinton's BJ, plenty of other things irritated me about his administration. I did have an issue with him going out and directly lying, but that was predicated on BS politics in the first place. Doesn't justify it, but it does reframe the conflict. I don't think when he pounded the pulpit with his finger up (dead givaway btw that he was lying) saying he didn't have sex with Monica he was thinking of it as a legal situation. Just seeing the political motivations. Which was a correct assessment, except he got drawn in to violating the law. Irritated, yes, is a good word for what I was then, with that. This Mickey Mouse bullshit with the constitution on the other hand really pisses me off.

By: sonofsamiam

sonofsamiam — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:03:00 -0800

The only question is was it just stupidity, or outright fraud for political gain. In the recent example of the "Miami plot" it was blatantly the latter, which was specifically why I have been so skeptical of the early reports on this "liquid plot." I could be wrong, of course, but the government just pulled a fast one three months ago!

By: Brak

Brak — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:39:08 -0800

The problem isn't cowardice, blindness, or fear. The problem is that many people in this country (and specifically, in this context, the Bill Frists of the population) don't have any intimate, firsthand understanding of the price that has been paid for the freedom that we have. They forget, or simply cannot comprehend, that Americans gave their lives, in their own back yards, to ensure that we would no longer be ruled under the kind of oppressive government that our representatives are espousing today. That, to the people who formed this Union, no level of security was worth the abdication of that freedom. Complacency isn't the right word, but it's the first word that comes to mind (thanks, Chuck). I'm glad to see that some people in our government are still trying to uphold their end of the bargain guaranteed by our Constitution. But I honestly don't think that this downward spiral of civil liberties will abate until people in this country get another firsthand taste of what it means to fight for their freedom, on their own ground. But maybe I'm just a pessimist. /rant

By: Benny Andajetz

Benny Andajetz — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:25:35 -0800

I wish our Commander-In-Chief had half the bona fides (and brains) Judge Taylor has. I hope her judgement stands; it seems to me to be well-reasoned and articulated clearly. That, of course, means it doesn't stand a chance here in Dystopia. Fingers crossed.

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 17:15:08 -0800

Brak - people are still working hard for it. Taylor - case in point.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 17:50:10 -0800

The Administration is just going to ignore this, like they've ignored Hamdan.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 19:31:44 -0800

Cafferty on the NSA Ruling: Bush is breaking the Law! Jonathon Turley Discusses Today's Ruling

By: Osama bin Laden

Osama bin Laden — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:35:20 -0800

Speaking of which, where are the Anthrax Mailer and Osama, anyway? We're having brunch on Saturday and seeing the Snakes on a Plane matinee at the mall. No spoliers, please!

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:42:03 -0800

Cafferty discusses it, but Wolf would rather talk about JonBenet. They're devoting no time to this at all on the news, and the papers won't tomorrow, either.

By: bigbigdog

bigbigdog — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:44:42 -0800

I want this woman on the supreme court.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:55:21 -0800

it's far more likely, sadly, that people will try to shoot her or something, big.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 21:07:35 -0800

oh, this news coverage i missed, and i'm glad of it: Digby on CNN: --...Blitzer just characterized the ruling as having "serious implications for the War on Terror" rather than serious implications for the Bush administration. That Republican programming is something, isn't it? And is it common to immediately put up a picture and discuss the race and gender of judges who ruled in major cases? I don't think I've seen it before. Usually they indicate whether or not a judge is a treasonous activist liberal by just indicating who appointed them. This time, we've got the designation "african american" every time the judge is mentioned. Now why would that be? ...

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 21:55:21 -0800

Money Quote from the ruling: ... We must first note that the Office of the Chief Executive has itself been created, with its powers, by the Constitution. There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all "inherent powers" must derive from that Constitution. ...

By: Civil_Disobedient

Civil_Disobedient — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:28:23 -0800

people are still working hard for it But people aren't dying for it. Or rather, the right people aren't dying for it.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 07:18:17 -0800

CNN just said they're continuing it during the appeals, ignoring the Judge's immediate order to stop.

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 10:50:17 -0800

Civil Disobedient - it hasn't come to that yet. I hope it doesn't. And we should try to prevent that as well. Part of it is to live it and live for it, not only serve it or die for it.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:06:03 -0800

The Post Editorial Board tell us how serious, high-minded people should talk about Presidential law-breaking

By: amberglow

amberglow — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:11:38 -0800

from homunculus' link: What really matters, says the Post in its unbelievably petty editorial, is not the profound constitutional crisis we face by virtue of a President who believes he has the power to act outside of the law and has been exercising that power aggressively and enthusiastically in numerous ways over five years. No, that is merely a fascinating intellectual puzzle, something for super-smart experts to resolve with great civility and high-minded, complex discussions as they ponder what the Post calls the "complicated, difficult issues" raised by the administration's lawlessness. To the Post, what really matters here is how impressed law professors are with the complexity and nuance in Judge Taylor's written decision. Condescendingly scoffing at the judicial quality of her opinion is of infinitely greater importance than objecting to the growing extremism and lawlessness to which our country has been subjected. It's so true--for the NYT to a lesser extent too--i'd rather have Hearst's Yellow Journalism back than this shit that talks around an issue instead of about the issue.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 19:15:39 -0800

Money Quote from the president: "I would say that those who herald this decision simply do not understand the nature of the world in which we live."

By: amberglow

amberglow — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 21:17:31 -0800

other Money Quotes from the president about his own understanding of the nature of the world in which we live: Mr. Bush asked Brazil's president, "Do you have blacks, too?" Galbraith reports that the three of them spent some time explaining to Bush that there are two different sects in Islam--to which the President allegedly responded, "I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!" and then there's the China-Russia flight times stuff, and all the rest at the recent G8 summit, and many many more...

By: homunculus

homunculus — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 11:29:00 -0800

Two Strange Deaths in European Wiretapping Scandal

By: homunculus

homunculus — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 12:27:19 -0800

Swiftboating the Fourth Amendment in the Name of the War On Terrorism

By: homunculus

homunculus — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 22:56:47 -0800

Ongoing misconceptions about Judge Taylor's opinion