[reznit eedjit Sh**ter]: Quite frankly, it's my opinion that adolescent desires for revenge and retribution are at work here, for slights real and imagined going all the way back to the 7-2 Supreme Court decision in 2000.

There was no "7-2 Supreme Court decision" in Dec. 2000. This has been explained to Sh**ter many times. He just ignores it.

Cheers,

I'm sure that Sh**ter has a better solution.

-- Arne Langsetmo

Well, he did advocate for a "final solution" for Palestinians the other day.

Pretty rich, huh? One day, advocating for genocide. Another day, opining on other's lack of nobility. All wrapped up in a lecture on hypocrisy.

He's bats**t crazy. That's all there is to it.

colleagues. He'll probably raise the average IQ of the Senate too.

The worst of them like Byrd stay forever and the best like Fred Thompson and Ben Nighthorse Campbell can't get out of that forsaken place quick enough.

"The rule of law consists of two fundamental elements: (1) a collective agreement to accept a particular result voluntarily if it results from procedures ordained by the constitution; and (2) an equilibrium of power between the president, congress, and the Supreme Court that consistently keeps outcomes away from extremes characterized by their disregard for minorities or the unorthodox. A statute that would make adherence to Islam a crime if passed unanimously by congress, signed by the president, and unanimously sustained by the U.S. Supreme Court,

-and heres the important part-

would nevertheless be tyranny, not law, because it would fail a minimum moral yardstick in the rule of law"

My point is that can't people like Tamm use this as a defense? I know this sounds tacky, but its kinda like the movie a few good men and how the soldiers were still guilty of the last charge (i think it was conduct unbecoming or something like that). Sure they weren't guilty of homicide, but they followed orders that they should've known were illegal.

Tamm appears to be the oppositie. He saw that the government was doing illegal things, (and even if they were legal, would they even pass the moral yardstick for a healthy democracy?) and spoke up about it.

Back to Fein, the next thing he goes into are transcripts from the Nuremberg trials

"Frick: well what do you expect a man to do when he has orders to carry out

Gilbert: If it is a question of one man's will against the lives of millions of people, I would say that one is morally obligated to kill the dictator rather than carry out such orders, if that is the only way out.

Frick: A moral obligation to murder? That is a very peculiar obligation. That is a crime against social convention, you know.

Gilbert: I see. Killing a murderous dictator is a crime against social convention, but war and extermination were quite legal in Nazi Germany.

Frick: Oh, that is another Matter."

In no way am i comparing genocide to warrantless wiretapping, but nonetheless i dont think i would be going too far by claiming that it is illegal and undemocratic and that people like Tamm should be praised for doing what was morally obligated.

btw quotes from pgs 22-23 of Constitutional Peril by Bruce Fein

What was a guy your age doing hanging around the bra tables in Filene's basement?

Meanwhile (h/t Emptywheel), Marisa Taylor has exposed more legal scholarship from John Yoo in a memo related to Bush's ability to start the Iraq war:

In one lengthy section, Yoo expounds on the meaning of the word “and” and concludes that it should not be construed as a conjunction.

Well, there was the case of California "insanity" defence law, where the court there held that where the law said "and" (requiring both elements be present for an insanity defence, which was at variance with the similar two prongs of such a defence in other states which required either of the two conditions), but the court figured out that they must have meant "or" (so as to be consistent with other states and just plain common sense), and that the legislature must simply have been sloppy in the drafting....

Cheers,

"United States Holocaust Memorial Council: Elliot Abrams, of Virginia, for a five-year term beginning 01/16/09"

Funny, how a guy can get appointed to a body such as that, not to mention be the State Department's top human rights official, but can't be bothered to notice the huge pile of dead people in El Salvador that his associates left behind.

Guess it has to be in the millions before it's an atrocity...

It is indeed incompetence at "Shock and Awe" levels.

Here's a thought-- Imagine that Democratic leadership continues to (characteristically) screw up and they mishandle Obama's initiatives. Obama is riding at super-high poll numbers now. An unhappy word from him to his email legions, and the public will circle congress and burn it to the ground.

But once you stand up and vow to do it [..] only to then meekly reverse yourself

It kills me... that is just gaspingly inept. I mean, that's inept for, like, office politics. The Associate VP for Sales, Midwest Division knows better than to pull something like that. It's almost enough for me to believe that they're bought off or something (which, let me assure y'all, I don't). I mean, how can you even get to hold public office being so inept?

This is, really, can't-tie-your-shoes ineptitude. It's verging on can't-wipe-your-ass ineptitude.

The whole "earmark" outrage was faux - created by the media who followed a pseudo-issue originated by John McCain. Judging by Obama's reaction to the argument in the debate (he rolled his eyes, shook his head and laughed), it's clear he doesn't think earmarks are the debbil. On the contrary, he knows what they do.

-- Retzilian

Actually, the earmark outrage was about those special projects which were "earmarked" after the legislative process was complete and the Bill was passed without them being specifically included.

Those kinds of earmarks are not good.

Venezuela Expels Israeli Ambassador Over Gaza

by Fabiola Sanchez, Published on Wednesday, January 7, 2009 by the Associated Press (see sig)

CARACAS, Venezuela - Venezuela ordered Israel's ambassador expelled from the country on Tuesday in protest over the Israeli military offensive in the Gaza Strip.

The decision by President Hugo Chavez to kick out the diplomat appeared to be the strongest reaction yet to the Gaza offensive by any country with ties to Israel.

The Venezuelan Foreign Ministry announced the move in a statement, saying it "has decided to expel the Israeli ambassador and part of the Israeli Embassy's personnel."

The Israeli offensive in Gaza has killed nearly 600 Palestinians in ground and air strikes. Israel launched the attacks Dec. 27 to stop Palestinian militants from firing rockets into southern Israel.

"How far will this barbarism go?" Chavez asked on state television before the ambassador's expulsion was announced. "The president of Israel should be taken before an international court together with the president of the United States, if the world had any conscience."

Venezuela's Foreign Ministry said its U.N. mission is joining with other countries in demanding the Security Council "apply urgent and necessary measures to stop this invasion."

[...]

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/01/07-4