Letters to the Editor
-
Wait for it....
Oh no. With news of another Bush legal defeat we are certain to have another situation Red terrorist alert any minute now.
-
Has she been branded yet....
... as an America-hating activist judge?
-
Here it comes...
The right-wing/Republican/Fox "News" backlash accusing Judge Taylor of hating America, supporting the terrorists, endangering national security, blah blah blah. It won't be long before they shift their hysterics into high gear, simply appalled at the suggestion that their dear president might actually be wrong on this one. Any bets on what Dick Cheney's first words on the subject might be?
Change the channel, and check your brain at the door.
-
Cue the foam
Surely, the right wing blogosphere is awash in "Rush is Right" neanderthals flecking their PC monitors with spittle as they dash off an enraged response to this latest blow against absolute power for the First Imbecile.
I may have to lurk on Free Republic for a few minutes just to watch the fun...
-
Until SCOTUS Weighs In
I was overjoyed after reading this but, sadly, within about 10 seconds a big wave of cold hard reality splashed me right in the face. Chief Justice Roberts won't have to recuse himself on this one ... unless I miss my guess, he and Alito will be just enough to overturn Judge Taylor's ruling. Long live King George, the first in a long line of unitary executives. (And pity poor Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who should be hailed as a patriot, but will instead be reviled by the right as an activist judge who's more interested in helping the terrorists than in keeping this country safe.)
Any bets on what gets more coverage on tonight's network news shows ... Halt to Warrantless Spying Program or JonBenet Ramsey Murder Suspect Apprehended?
On a more personal note, I'd like to thank George Bush for turning me into the kind of person I've always despised ... a hard-bitten cynic who finds it next to impossible to expect anything but the worst.
-
The Crux of the Matter
After repeatedly being flummoxed by conservative friends and family members' take (straw men, paranoia, etc.) on this administration, I've finally found the exact words to rebut them:
"Implicit in the term 'national defense' is the notion of defending those values and ideas which set this nation apart. . . . It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of . . . those liberties . . . which make the defense of the nation worthwhile."
I mean, this has been the elephant in the room, hasn't it? It's impossible to argue with this logic and yet, no one has put it so succinctly as Her Honor, despite the years of reckless abandon with which Bushie and Co. have "run" this country.
-
Inherent Power?
Just read through some of Judge Taylor's opinion. Even as a lay person, it's pretty fun reading in parts.
http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/eGov/taylorpdf/06%2010204.pdf
My favorite (skip ahead to page 40) is regarding the claims of "inherent powers" for the president to spy on us without warrants.
----
IX. Inherent Power
Article II of the United States Constitution provides that any citizen of appropriate birth, age and residency may be elected to the Office of President of the United States and be vested with the executive power of this nation.
The duties and powers of the Chief Executive are carefully listed, including the duty to be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and the Presidential Oath of Office is set forth in the Constitution and requires him to swear or affirm that he “will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
The Government appears to argue here that, pursuant to the penumbra of Constitutional language in Article II, and particularly because the President is designated Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, he has been granted the inherent power to violate not only the laws of the Congress but the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, itself.
We must first note that the Office of the Chief Executive has itself been created, with its powers, by the Constitution. There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all “inherent powers” must derive from that Constitution.
----
Boo-yah! That's the smackdown! You're a president, bound by the Constitution, not a king. So sad when our president, the "leader of the free world," must be TOLD this.
-
I wonder...
...if any of the cable news networks will cut away from the confessed JonBenet killer long enough to mention this.
Heh, what am I thinking? This is actually useful news. Thank you, Salon, for actually talking about important things.
-
I'm sure everyone remembers Bush's "joke"
"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
I think about that comment a lot, actually.
-
"Free" only by fiat
So sad when our president, the "leader of the free world," must be TOLD this.
I think you needed quotes only around the "free" part of that. A unitary executive means that none of us are truely free. We are free only by his fiat, not by fundamental right.
-
Shocker
And, in almost no time, the U.S. Gov't comes back saying they'll challenge the ruling. But talking about it will embolden the enemy, right?
So why does George Bush love terrorists? Somebody ought to ask him.
-
Push has come to shove.
In what may be the greatest constitutional crisis since Marbury v. Madison, the issue is now enjoined. Must the president obey the law? Judge Diggs Taylor says yes. And to those who wish to put a finger to the wind, during his keynote speech at the ABA convention last week, Justice Anthony Kennedy stated categorically the rule of law is binding upon the Federal government and all of its officials.
Could he make it much clearer than that?
As the pivotal vote in the 5-3 Hamdan decision, it looks to me like Justice Kennedy is sending up smoke signals that the time is right to determine once and for all whether we are a republic or an empire.
The arguments that the Justice Department will make in the appeal before the 6th Circuit in Cincinnati have been made before, most notably by Charles I in 1649, when he told Parliament that he ruled by Divine Right and that the King can do no wrong. Parliament disabused Charles Stuart of his folly by separating his head from his shoulders.
Judge Taylor found the NSA wiretapping program to violate the Constitution, and more importantly, the Foreign Intelliegence Surveillance Act of 1978, which states in pertinent part at Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter I § 1809 Criminal sanctions:
A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally—
(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; . . .
Penalties
An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.
For each count. Dust off some cells in Leavenworth.