Thanks, Glenn, for (as usual) a truly educational post. But, yes, the decision does drive laypeople crazy. To simpify:

Bush regime: “We’re going to secretly surveil all green people without a warrant, because we don’t need no steenkin’ court system.”

The ACLU says: “Fine! That gives Kermit the Frog, here, standing to sue to get his Fourth Amendment rights back!”

Bush regime: “Oh, no you don’t! Kermit may be green, but he still has to personally prove he was spied on!”

The ACLU: “It’s a secret program! Kermit can’t do that!”

Bush regime: “And your point is?”

Surely, when the administration announces or evidences that a class of people are to be surveilled, the members of that class have standing?

This is even more clear in this case, where IIRC the plaintiffs were lawyers, and even if there are reasonable grounds for the attorneys to suspect they were surveilled, as opposed to hard proof, then attorney client privilege would be violated.

Let's also note that we really have to assume that Scalia et al wrote Bush v. Gore with votes on the court, hence decision outcomes, in mind. It's the same mentality as in the Gonzale's so-called voter fraud cases, where criminal cases were brought with election outcomes in mind. ("The intelligence and the facts were fixed around the policy.")

So, while I respect your explanation of the law of standing, I'm much less sanguine about the health, and the legitimacy, of the courts, and in particular the health, and the legitimacy, of the Bush Court, than you appear to be. The standing argument is merely the first layer of defense.

Atlantic James Fallows originated it here:

http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/07/david_petraeus_and_the_new_jes.php

I just wanted to say, thank you, Glenn, for the important work you are doing.

So I'm surprised you're still using it, Glenn. Don't you know how to take direction?

And now Bush expects to get it from the Democrats?

Tell me again why we elected the Democrats in 2006? Because I keep forgetting.

Move that deck chair over here, wouldja? Thanks. Hey, who do I bill for this?

Today's equivalent of the White House Iraq Group?

There's The Incompetence Dodge; and then there's the Process Dodge:

http://www.correntewire.com/the_democratic_party_and_the_process_dodge

A common theme in the string of Democratic Party failures over the last years is what I call “Blaming The Process”. Or at least that is the narrative Democratic Party officials use when justifying themselves to the activist base. Something outside of their control, something about the legal, political or media process is actually responsible for the outcomes.

The failure to block the Roberts and Alito nominations, the failure to do anything concrete to end the occupation of Iraq, and now the imminent approval of warrantless domestic surveillance, are somehow not the responsibility of the Democratic elected officials.

The fault is to be found in things like the intricate details of the Filibuster and the Nuclear Option, the military budgeting process, the process whereby the media will utterly destroy any politician they deem to be “soft on terror”.

However much Democratic politicians express their heartfelt desire to do the things their activist base and now the majority of Americans want them to do, the desired outcomes fail to materialize.

In light of this, is it wrong to wonder whether blaming the process is just an excuse and that the politicians are not being entirely honest in their stated intentions?

I know it’s not polite to question people’s motivations. But I think it’s only natural to question a person when what they do does not match what they say. Over and over again.

As workers in the “highly efficient” corporate economy, we citizens are judged based on results, not on the persuasiveness of our excuses. Well, maybe with an exception for CEO’s…

Indeed.

... but didn't he really mean, with W.C. Fields, Egypt-shine?

Just sayin' ...

Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!

As I remark:

http://www.correntewire.com/versailles_on_the_potomac_its_a_dead_parrot

The Red States, during the Conservative Ascendancy, were all too successful in arrogating the spoils of the National Security state to themselves; that’s where the bases are, that’s where the plants are; and, in Congress, that’s where the votes are. The parasitism of the National Security State is one reason why Blue States subsidize Red States; our tax dollars are the blood that lets the cancer grow.

At some point, it’s going to occur to some smart politician that, as the Republicans become a regional, rump party based in a few Red States, the national constituency for the National Security State rests on a very fragile electoral foundation. That leaves Fear as the only card the Republicans really have to play. Tactically, dynamiting the foundation of the National Security State would be the result of a successful campaign against the Bush Dogs. And strategically, a “freedom from fear” message would return the Democratic Party to its real roots (and perhaps to multi-generational dominance once more) if some Presidential candidate were willing to run on that.

with the El Paso Times.

Amazing, or not, that Bush can get what he wants from the Democrats, but not from the Republicans.

Harry, Nancy: Nice work.

It's like the Republicans have the sense to do their ritual abasement in private (vide Diaper Davey Vitter), and the Democrats insist on doing it in public.

Thing is, the Republicans really want to be dominated. If only the Democrats would understand that, and act on it. Right now, neither side is getting what it wants....a

For those who came in late:

It's OK If You're A Republican.

Take the poll.