Or on "what digby said" - I love Digby and normally agree this is the only required text on a post linking to Digby, but in this instance she did miss an important facet that Glenn caught: That the examples Kurtz gave, even if they were started by Democratic operatives purposely to smear republicans have the added virtue of being true, and substantive criticisms, unlike those generally spread by Republicans.

Digby focused on whether or not the stories really were spread by Democratic operatives, but missed the gaping qualitative disparity in the stories themselves.

If the Republicans were spreading truthful stories about a Democratic president torturing prisoners, spying illegally and whatnot, I for one would think they were doing their job as opposition in a Democracy.

As it is, all they ever seem to have is haircuts and large houses and imagined attempts by Hillary to use cleavage on the Senate floor. Farcical nonsense which can usually be dismissed just on the first glance.

It goes more to Kurtz warped sense of proportion that to him, the story about Bush, running to "restore honor and dignity" to the White House has a DUI on his record is somehow equivalent in importance to what John Edwards pays for a haircut.

Or that revelations that the government is spying illegally on its citizens is just the same as egregious lies about a struggling 12 year old with health problems.

It is only now ceasing to amaze me how Republican lines of attack manage to be obviously wrong, and then wrong a second and sometimes third time on more subtle levels. I find I cannot duplicate this feat myself, even when I try.

Of course, the right wing has been attacking the Judicial branch for many years. They work to erode public confidence in the very idea of impartial judges making evidence based decisions.

"Activist judges legislating from the bench"

I can't wait for them to start decrying "activist legislators legislating from the legislature"

As Paul Rosenberg's quote from the Authoritarians shows, they are capable of that level of cognitive dissonance.

"whimsy of our judicial system" is probably a new low even for the weekly standard. I never doubt anymore that the very form of the US constitution is at heart a liberal enterprise. If it had been up to conservatives there would have been but one branch of government from the very start: A King.

Has also come out against this.

See his statement at

http://feingold.senate.gov

He is also on the Intelligence and Judiciary committees and is well placed to prevent a bill containing immunity from hitting the floor.

I note sadly that the only MSM venues I can find that have items on Dodd's move are Fox News and CNN Money.

Weird huh? NY Times, CNN, WaPo, nada on it.

so where is this court case, and on what timeline would it come to resolution ignoring possible actions by congress?

I mean, it would be great if a Judge might rule on this within weeks, so that todays bill being pulled could make the difference.

Are we racing the clock or is it likely congress will pass some kind of FISA revision long before the courts rule on this case?

When people can only muster an extra 5 minutes of their day to saving the Republic, and that devotion consists giving Glenn attaboys, I call bullshit on their entire End Times theory, especially when they are so fond of calling bullshit on others who do not put their money where their mouths are (e.g., the chickenhawk argument and each of its variants).

Since you don't quantify this group, and offer no proof of its existence or relevance, it's difficult to go much further refuting this.

I'm not prepared to judge the involvement level of masses of unspecified people nor prescribe how much they should be doing. Your comparison between this and the chickenhawk neo-cons is specious. The neo-cons are leading the charge to more wars in a very public and loud manner and repudiating the patriotism and morality of those who oppose those wars.

That some unknown blogger might feel things are going very wrong but do little about it is hardly comparable. For one thing, no one is lionizing these bloggers as individuals and no presidential candidates are hiring them to advise on foreign policy like the neo-cons.

Part of the problem of the neo-cons is that in every conceivable way, they are demonstrably unfit for the high station they somehow have, and the dominant place in the public discourse. Boo hoo if Random Q. Blogger is a latte sipping hypocrite, how many think tanks does he run? How many op-ed columns did he write in national newspapers?

I don't mind that, it makes some sense that an unconfirmed nominee should not be given the keys to the classified kingdom.

but the senate should not accept this non-answer. Is waterboarding torture? It isn't some quibbling point of law. They should be able to get a definitive answer from him and vow not to vote for his confirmation unless the answer is "yes it is"

Thanks to 6Stringer for the inspiration, with his/her use of the word "nepotist"

The neo-cons are just nepostitutes.