I just saw this link on Democratic Underground

(Warning it will tick you off even more)

Behind the Compromise on Spying

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1816911,00.html

Formerly, by Rehnquist, which helps explain why they were such reliable rubber stamps. For the rest of my natural life, by Roberts, which guarantees that any new ones that come in will be fully on board with the unitary executive. No matter how many Constitution loving Presidents we manage to elect. And as we just learned, to elect the first of those, we'll have to wait at least four more years.

If this was about Guns (or even Gays, Buning Flags or Screaming Fetuses) the American people would be up in arms, (in some cases, with their arms)! But privacy issues? Come on. That De Tocqueville guy was French and I think he got his words lost in translation. He said we were a "nation of joiners". I think he meant VOYEURS! After all, it's not like the 4th was ever very popular with the federal courts or the federal gummint. They ignored it for over 100 YEARS! Not even the states got around to respecting it until 1960! You can thank Don King for that. You think I'm kidding, don't you?

David Davis is now a loony Bennite! (No not really)

http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5i8jD2eUlBML4NJcB37yTfkYiUbFA

Benn praises Tory rebel's courage

Veteran left-wing politician Tony Benn said people will one day look back at David Davis' decision to force a by-election on the issue of civil liberties and say "thank God".

Meanwhile, continued mockery from the mainstream press:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/22/do2204.xml

David Davis's gamble looks like a very bad bet
By Iain Martin
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 22/06/2008

[...] There is not exactly a tidal wave of pro-Davis feeling sweeping Britain.

[...] Davis supporters used to like to think of their man as the grown-up and Cameron as being naive. In the last fortnight, the Tory leader's critics should have learned that the opposite was true all along.

- - The Telegraph

But the Sunday Express (a trashy tabloid) reports that Cameron may be trying to mend fences and make a show of support for Davis:

http://express.co.uk/posts/view/49331/Tory-big-guns-to-back-Davis

TORY BIG GUNS TO BACK DAVIS
Sunday June 22,2008

DAVID Cameron has ordered every member of the Shadow Cabinet to travel to Yorkshire to campaign for the maverick senior Tory David Davis in his “freedom” by-election.

- - Sunday Express

What's (the "grown-up") Cameron's scheme?

Doesn't the constitution supersede all other branches? That is, since warrantless eavesdropping is unconstitutional, doesn't that mean that even if the houses and the executive branch say that spying is all cool and awesome, it just won't make it so?

Say in the worst case scenario (a scenario already taking place) there are no checks and balances in politics. Say there is only one party in power (which is basically true), then what?

Does the individual have the right to sue the President? I know that we can vote people out, but the reason why these people are in power is because there are staggeringly ignorant and, frankly, stupid voters, so dislodging these people in power will be tough, if not impossible, to do.

I am curious to know what rights an individual has against a corrupt government that has a complete stranglehold on power.

Bah, I am too depressed to even think. Thank you again, Glenn, for your articles! I learn a lot from you, as always.

Who writes:

I have been searching my usual haunts like Diogenes, looking for someone who will rightfully criticize Obama for this shitty and cowardly move, and, indeed, all I see is people making excuses and defending Obama as "shrewd" and "smarter than us" or saying he will fix it later. Right. Keep dreaming.

Your search is over. As I said yesterday around here, I more than criticize Obama. I am through with him. I am voting third party.

There has to come a time when cynical Dem politicians stop selling out their principles on the grounds that, well, they'll vote for me anyway, because [fill in the blank] is even worse.

Do we stop that by continuing to allow politicians like Obama to sell us out?

I agree with Glenn that Obama is not as bad as McCain. But Obama has proven that he is just another power-mad control freak who will do whatever it takes to be The Boss.

I will watch, sadly, as the days go by and today's blind followers begin to wake up.

Obama is not change you can believe in; he is just another guy who, tantalized by the prospect of authoritarian power, reaches out with both hands.

I just hope if he is elected he waits a decent interval before bombing Iran. (because he doesn't want to offend his establishment pals)

Maybe Obama didn't really have a chance to stop that law, but if anybody had a chance, it was him.

Obama kept his powder dry, and the MCA passed the Senate on 9/30/2006.

I'm the last person to come to Obama's defense, but the fact is that first term Senators have no power -- and are told that if they expect to be effective for their constituents, that they need to maintain a low profile --- there are a lot of massive egos in the Senate, and they don't like sharing attention with newbies.

Obama's vote in itself was meaningless -- it may have been the "wrong" vote, but it wasn't a decisive vote, and it showed that Obama was a 'team player'. It WAS NOT a precursor or predictor of this current betrayal.

It was, however, a sign that Obama was no better than Hillary Clinton when it came to being your 'average politician' -- and all the little Obots who thought Obama was somehow 'special' or 'different' have been kidding themselves all along -- Obama's rhethoric never matched his actions...

But this betrayal was being telegraphed throughout the campaign itself -- Obama's abandonment of core democratic principles, especially the 'race-boating' of the Clintons, signalled that Obama was unfit for the Oval Office; this was "HIS" campaign, he was in charge, and it was one of the ugliest and most dishonest campaigns in history -- but it was only possible because Obama's supporters and the media were so obsessed with CDS that they refused to see what was right before their eyes.

The only thing to be done now is to bite the bullet -- make it clear to the DNC that you will not vote for Obama if he is the nominee -- AND MEAN IT.

You don't have to support Clinton -- while I think that she is the single best qualified person available, she's not the only Democrat that is qualified, and I'd be more than happy to support a Gore or Edwards, and would support an alternative over Clinton if it ensured a Democratic victory in November.

But, supporting Obama cannot be an option -- anymore that an abused woman should stay with her husband because life will be difficult for her for a few years. Sometimes, you just have to stand up and say NO!.... and this is one of those times.