two news nuggets from this week show that no-one in congress has managed to push the DOJ off its course - (1) to derail voter rights and (2)to help big corporations and ignore the needs of the public at large.

As to voters: in NC, a local Republ named Merritt, was just aided by a newly-published bogus DOJ report for NC to successfully put a wrench on the state legislators' vote this week on NC's new 'same-day-voting' legislation.

He apparently was coy about his warnings as to what his source was for why the vote was a bad diea. But on the day of the vote a report was published citing three [gasp] horribles:

(1) that voter rolls exceeded the populace in some towns [yes virginia, inactive voters' names are only purged after two federal elections, leaving lists often higher than resident numbers, esp in college-type towns with a transient populace], (2) voters who were dead [yes, virginia, many absentee voters died before the general elections] and (3) underage voters [yes virginia, many 17 year olds vote legally in NC primaries so long as they turn 18 by the date of the general].

And, as for post-Katrina victims of Insurance Companies? Even a federal judge was apparently appalled at DOJ's refusal to join a private suit against insurers who are screwing hurrican victims. The progressive site

http://southernstudies.org/facingsouth/2007/06/gulf-watch-why-wont-doj-take-action-on.asp

quotes AP:

"U.S. District Judge Peter Beer filed a one-sentence motion this week: 'The Court, on its own motion, respectfully requests the United States Department of Justice enter this case by July 9, 2007, or show cause on July 11, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., why they are not intervening in this civil action.'"

So, while we wonder who the "good Americans" are who have been recently appointed over the last few years to push projects at DOJ, we can rest assured that those at the top of DOJ continue to ensure DOJ has time to help local Republicans put the wrench in voting rights legislation in states like North Carolina, and to provide sufficient resources to help prosecute nasty individuals who defraud Insurance companies. But as a result the poor DOJ is just too strapped to file an amicus brief to help the victims of Katrina get their insurance money.

Bond is correct that the FISA court is not suitable to litigation as the only party allowed to submit information is the Govt.

However, the federal courts are historically very well able to deal with issues that must be kept secret while dealing with litigation [2-sided]; through in-camera review of documents, for example, as to extent of secrecy necessary. That is currently the case with the ongoing litigation and it scares the crap out of the admin because the fed judiciary has allowed the liutigatino to proceed - and in certain cases has demanded that the govt produce docs.

In every single case litigated - whether telecoms or military tribunals or whatever - the govt argument has been that (a) the issue at hand is out of the jurisdiction of the fed courts, and moreover (b) that the courts have no power to decide whether they have the power to determine a jurisdiction Q at all - as only the executive should be deciding what is or is not even within the courts' jurisdiction.

Thus in this case, the executive I beliueve holds that the issue is not properly within the fed courts at all but only within FISA - which cannot deal with litigation. Get it? Its we win because we win.

[sorry for any misspellings /syntax errors above or below]

on the same day that the Clinton camp [sorry it was not reported whom] first complained that Obama's [national] ad-buy 'unfairly' ran in Florida, Clinton surrogate Repr Nita Lowey [D-NY]proclaimed during an MSNBC interview that Hilary had just 'won' the Michigan Primary - in which the other two frontrunners Edwards & Obama - in deference to the Natl party - had withdrawn their names from the ballot and purportedly from any applic allowing write-ins to count.

Later, Hillary herself apparently made this same pronoun cement about a Michigan 'win' for a McClatchey [sp?] news interview.

I had been vascillating every single day between Hillary and Edwards and Obama until hearing Repr Lowey on Mon 1/21 mouth such a distasteful exploitation of others' [for better or worse] belief in the rules of the game proclaimed by thneir party leadership.

This well-reasoned post has helped me see that ineffectual leadership of the Dem party - which has eschewed any opportunity to at least make it clear that mid-stream changes are inherently unfair - may have been one more reason why an endorsement by Sen Kennedy came at this moment.