Since you have such faith in the infallibility of Supreme Court decisions, I am sure that you also support the Dred Scott decision as the last word on the subject. Or Roe v. Wade, for that matter.

The fact is that the FISA law could not be clearer, and violating it is a felony. There are no ifs, ands, or buts. It is not illegal to spy or wiretap – however it is illegal to do it without a warrant. As Ronald Reagan said: facts are stubborn things. So are laws.

Read the Fourth Amendment again. You left out the phrase “no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.”

The rest of your post is based on a false premise. Korematsu was not reasonable. Read the dissenting opinions to learn why.

The President is required to get a warrant to spy on American citizens when they are on American soil. Period. The FISA law was enacted precisely to prevent acts such as the administration’s warrantless wiretapping. If you have any doubt, read the law. It’s all there in black and white.

And who exactly is “the enemy?” And how do you know that those whose conversations were wiretapped were, in fact, “the enemy?” And if “the enemy” is so abundant among us, why is it that the administration has yet to achieve a conviction in a major terrorist case? And if the administration wants to wiretap those it suspects of being terrorists, what prevents them from getting a warrant to do so? Your argument is that everything is permitted as long as it is directed at “the enemy,” which is defined as anyone labeled as such by the executive branch?

The “someone” who brought up the analogy to the Saturday Night massacre was Arlen Specter. The two events are analogous because in both instances, a President pressured or fired senior Justice Department officials to remove obstacles to illegality. Nixon fired Ruckelshaus and Richardson so a pliant Robert Bork could fire Cox. Bush and Cheney directed Gonzales and Card to pressure Ashcroft to certify their illegal evasion of FISA laws. Comey, to his credit, refused the certification and resigned instead. Ashcroft, to his credit, refused to do it as well. They are both gone now, replaced with the incompetent and dishonest (but loyal) Gonzales.

Which brings up a related subject: say what you will about Janet Reno, but she appointed a Special Prosecutor from the opposing party and then expanded his mission when Starr investigated Clinton. It would be unimaginable for this administration (or this Justice Department) to hire a Democratic special prosecutor to investigate the copious wrongdoing and illegality of this administration.

I think you have to draw a distinction between community property which is accumulated during the marriage and the husband’s income after the divorce.

I’ve been married thirteen years – never divorced – but it seems reasonable to me that each divorcing parent should leave the marriage with what they entered into it with, plus half of the community property.

After the marriage, the husband (if it is a one income household) ought to pay for child support until the kid reaches adulthood, plus some amount of alimony for a very limited amount of time until the ex-wife can get on her feet.

Presumably both parties entered into the marriage in good faith. Things didn’t work out. What obligates the ex-husband to support the ex-wife in perpetuity?

I don't disagree. Each case is different, and what's fair is fair. I'm familiar with two divorces in which the high-income husband had to pay alimony for many years (in one case, a few decades -- from day of divorce until Social Security). Divorce settlements should be reasonable but they shouldn't be a sinecure for the non-working spouse.

However, I don't buy the argument that there is some equivalence between being a "corporate wife" and a corporate leader. There was a divorce case several years ago between Gary Wendt, who ran GE Capital, and his wife Laura. The estate was worth ~ $80 million, and Laura wanted half, arguing that her entertaining and other support was equal to his labor. The judge disagreed and gave her (a measly) $10 million. Putting yourself on the line, undergoing job stress for years, and having the skills to rise to the top are unequal to being the "corporate spouse."

The worst terrorist attack on US soil took place under Bush/Cheney's watch. After they had been warned, and after they did nothing.