but I must say that the posts here that say some version of "the SCOTUS shouldn't substitute its judgment for that of the woman and her doctor" are just silly. The fact is, if you'll think about it for about 5 seconds, legislatures and courts "substitute" their judgments for ours in countless ways. Those are called "laws" and "regulations" and "judicial precedents." The idea that women have some kind of unfettered right to an abortion, entirely free of governmental oversight is simply not true and never has been. Read Roe v. Wade.

Argue that the Carhart decision was wrongly decided, but not that the justices shouldn't "substitute their judgment for that of the woman." That argument is a non-starter.

but the whole anti-blogger thing is all of a piece with what Noam Chomsky identifies as the MSM's primary function in this political system. Bloggers make it damned hard for the press to manufacture consent for elite policies. The press routinely suppresses facts which contradict elite policies, worldviews, values, etc. In doing so, it is anti-democratic because "reality" is filtered to give prominence to elite opinion. The free speech aspect of blogs is democratic; everyone with internet access gets a say. Elites loathe and fear democracy. The masses aren't to be trusted. I would argue that the whole "Viet Nam Syndrome" is at base an elite reaction to the fact that the people, through mass demonstrations, forced the cancellation of the war, a valued elite cold war project. They've never recovered from the shock of not automatically getting their way.

(By the way Glenn, I asked you this before but got no answer. Why don't you refer to Chomsky in your critique of the MSM?)

instead of wondering, why don't you ask some of them. If you actually listen to what they say, you might discover some perfectly good reasons why they do what they do and which you call self-defeating. It may be that their values just differ from yours and that their actions promote those values. In other words, it may be that they aren't self-defeating at all.

for setting me straight on Roger Ailes. I'm relieved.

Glenn, I just think Chomsky's analysis of the MSM is always useful in understanding what the press is doing and why.

yesterday, a majority of the memebers of the Iraqi parliament signed a petition calling for a timetable which is "not long" for the withdrawal of American forces. Sounds like another inconvenient truth to ignore.

excellent, simply excellent. To my mind, maybe your best blog yet. This is so reminiscent of exactly what brought Nixon down. May it do the same for the currently resident thugs.

One thing, though. You say the question of whether warrantless eavesdropping on Americans occurred is still unanswered. Is it? My understanding is that NSA had a deal with AT&T to "drift net" all calls in their system. That's not tapping individual phones, but it's certainly gathering data without probable cause, and of course without a warrant.

the questioner says "So, Attorney Gonzalez, if you can't remember, then you can't deny what Mr. Comey testified to, right?"

The NYT picked up the ball today and made several of the points Glenn Greenwald made yesterday. Stranger things have happened.

that the MSM perceives one of its key functions to be the manufacturing of consent for elite policies, then the failure of said MSM to give this story proper play means that Bush Administration behavior is still acceptable to certain powerful elite interests. There is plenty of wrongdoing in this story and countless others for Bush, Cheney and Gonzalez to have been impeached long ago. That Congress and the MSM haven't pushed that ball down the field means their paymasters don't want them to. The tipping point hasn't been reached yet, but, as we saw under Nixon, power elites have limits on what level of incompetence they will tolerate. I'm surprised they haven't reached it yet, but it is not only incompetence that matters. Perhaps more important is the amount of publicity given the incompetence. As long as the lid is kept on, elites will stand by their men. That's where congressional hearings come in. We've only had a few months of hearings, but there's lots more to come and many more Comey moments.

good thought on filing a grievance with the Texas State Bar. I'm an attorney in Texas and everyone should understand that anyone, anyone at all can file a grievance against a Texas attorney. You don't have to be represented by the attorney or have any relationship to him/her. If you become aware by whatever means, or believe for whatever reason that a Texas attorney has violated the disciplinary rules of the State Bar, you may file a grievance. Grievance procedures are matters of public record.

my understanding is that all filings are public records, but there may be exceptions I don't know about. As to the Texas State Bar ever disciplining Alberto Gonzalez, it'll never happen. Basically, the only attorneys who get seriously disciplined are those with a record of multiple complaints. Anyone with the political backing of Alberto Gonzalez is bulletproof. But the factfinding process could be interesting.

has been running for or holding office in my neck of the woods since the mid-70s at least. He ran as a Libertarian for years until he decided to win instead of just run. Then he became a Republican.

The thing about Paul is that he is that rarest of political birds, a principled man. He's smart and really believes his fundamentally libertarian political philosophy. So of course he'd oppose this administration's interventionist foreign policy.

He's far too honest and principled to ever be elected president, but those are just the qualities that have the current crop of candidates so bent out of shape. With Paul, you can make book that there'll be more of the same, and it'll be interesting to see what the media and other candidates do to marginalize him. It's already beginning.