I don't mean to appear dumb or defensive for Obama's position (and I agree with everything Glenn's been saying), but is there any chance that the parts of the FISA bill that violate the 4th amendment can be struck down at a later time by the courts?

I'm just curious. I mean if the Dems were somehow able to succeed in getting the telecom immunity removed, and then depended on SCOTUS to knock down the unconstitutional parts, we would effectively win.

...he couldn't have picked a worse one--except giving the Bush administration a complete pass on every one of their crimes.

Doesn't look good from where I sit. I may have to give up my interest in politics completely...

...as long as we keep a moderate majority on the Supreme Court.

One more Justice, and kiss it goodbye.

Why do these things have to go right to the edge of the abyss? Are we amusing God with our antics, or the FSM...?

My two favorite commentators in the world, the two people who, since Molly died, have kept my progressive spirit from dying, and they're having a cat fight over what amounts to a difference in style.

No, I'm not happy about the way Keith failed to slam Obama hard over his FISA cave. But I'm also not happy about how Glenn's criticism of Keith's failure was on a par with his criticism of serial failures like Bill Kristol.

And I'm disgusted at both of them for turning this into a personal fight.

Rise above it, boys. We need both of you at top form attacking the real perpetrators of media and political fraud. Don't get bogged down now.

Don't believe me - then watch his show.

He's 100% pundit now. His trashing of Clinton was disgraceful.

I miss Phil Donahue and Dan Rather.

Since KO didn't read all of your article yesterday, he sure needs to read your full response today. He also needs to invite you on Countdown to either defend his weak position or admit that he is not nearly as informed as you are and his viewers deserve to know the full truth about the FISA bill, especially since it will not be voted on until at least July 8.

If KO doesn't do that, then seeking the truth may not be his number one priority. That dishonors him and his strong supporters like me who will continue to judge him by the totality of his work and not on one issue or broadcast.

I don't mean to appear dumb or defensive for Obama's position (and I agree with everything Glenn's been saying), but is there any chance that the parts of the FISA bill that violate the 4th amendment can be struck down at a later time by the courts?

Yes, it's quite possible. The Supreme Court, in 1972, ruled that Nixon's warrantless spying for purposes of investigating domestic terorrism violated the Fourth Amendment, but explicitly left open the question of whether the Fourth Amendment bars warrantless eavesdropping for foreign terrorism investigations (though the rationale applies just as much).

The arguments for the unconstitutionality of telecom amnesty are much more difficult and dubious.

Olberman's silly hit piece on you or the fawning it got on Dkos.

I have posted this quote from an ACLU work plan before, and EJ found it online and posted it most recently.

"If a law that includes immunity and unconstitutional basket warrants is signed, you can rest assured that ACLU lawyers will be in court challenging it as quickly as humanly possible."

2008 Work Plan http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/Workplan2.pdf

I have no sense of how successful they might be in their challenge. The better approach, for now, is to do what we can to prevent this bill from clearing the Senate. As hard as preventing it has been, undoing it may be even harder - if that's possible.

This:

[Olbermann, for whatever reasons, than lops on a paragraph at the end chiding unnamed people for "callousness expressed at Tim Russert's passing" and those who criticized Russert's journalism before "he was interred."]

was a direct response to things that happened at DKos, which had a whole intercine war about the reaction and follow up to the Tim Russert news. It was clear to anyone there that he was addressing that, because he was posting at Kos at the moment. What I mean is that this part had nothing to do with you. I'm not sure if you thought or were implying otherwise, but just to clear that up.

I agree with you about FISA and it's important to be looked at as much as possible. I didn't see Olbermann as doing the kind of one-sided cheerleading that you did, more examining the issue and putting it on the air, where it needs to be. I disagree with some of his conclusions but I disagree with some of yours sometimes, that's natural.

I do think it's disingenous to make cracks about Olbermann's "making things personal" whereas in fact by saying that, so are you. Point?

You're both important voices, I hope this doesn't turn into something silly.

And I have to admit I'm disappointed in your post today. Olbermann has every reason to call your post "simplistic and childish" because it was.

You accused Olbermann of flip-flopping on one issue, but used two quotes on two seperate parts of the bill, and last (and this was your biggest screw-up) you omitted two minutes of material in your transcription that showed you had it exactly backwards when you said "Olbermann closed by scoffing at the idea that telecom amnesty or revisions to FISA were necessary to help National Security."

No, Glenn, he didn't, and if you hadn't flown off the handle at that point, you'd know that. Your own link shows Olbermann going on to say that there can't be a threat because Bush is holding the bill up for the telecoms, and surely Bush wouldn't leave us exposed, would he?

That's what happens when you only half pay attention to sarcasm: you get the message backwards.

Glenn, I'm a big fan, and I've been one of your defenders, but in simple terms of what words in English mean, you blew it, and you owe the man an apology. I'd hate to think that this has gotten so personal that no one can back down.

.