How about that (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/17/domesticspying.lawsuit.ap/index.html).

Odds on it standing up to appeal? How about a pool on how long it takes to get a stay on the order to stop immediately?

DETROIT, Michigan (AP) -- A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves secretly taping conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries.

The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.

The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule.

Wow...score 1 for civil liberties....at least someone in government cares.

Civil Liberties are protected by this ruling.
Maybe this will force the Executive Branch to follow the law when it comes to wiretapping.

One can hope

The entire issue of the wiretap program was a simple one of Bush and Cheney wanting to exert control, rather than have the secret judge panel (FISA) have it.

Every time these two have had egg on their face(s) it has been a result of wanting to exert control over something, regardless of whether it was appropriate, or even necessary. Following the law, and adhering to the Constitutional protections offered to residents of this country, does not mean we are unable to continue the fight against terrorists; it means instead that we will continue to be a free country defending it's freedoms and people.

It's already been appealed and the judge, I believe, stayed enforcement of her ruling pending the appeal (knowing the appeal would be coming). I'm somewhat surprised the judge issued a lengthy opinion since it is irrelevant in the scheme of things (rulings will be de novo).

Isn't this ruling basically backing up the law of the land? That in order to wiretap you must get a warrant. It seems to me it just reinforces the FISA court and the current laws of the USA.

I haven't read the ruling yet. However, it would be very odd for a judge to rule against "the law of the land" unless it's striking a law down. Post the ruling if you have it.

You can find the ruling here (http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/08/17/nsa.lawsuit.pdf). Two major parts to it. The first deals with whether the court could hear the case or had to dismiss it due to the government's statement that pursuing the case could jeopardize state secrets. The judge agreed with the plaintiffs that the administration's admissions as to the existence of the wiretapping program provided enough evidence to allow a ruling without actually seeking discovery of that evidence. Thus, the judge could debate the constitutionality of the program without the judicial process divulging state secrets.

The second part is the judgment itself. From the Conclusion:
For all of the reasons outlined above, this court is constrained to grant to Plaintiffs the Partial Summary Judgment requested, and holds that the TSP violates the APA; the Separation of Powers doctrine; the First and Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution; and the statutory law.
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the final claim of data-mining is granted, because litigation of that claim would require violation of Defendants’ state secrets privilege.

The Permanent Injunction of the TSP requested by Plaintiffs is granted inasmuch as each of the factors required to be met to sustain such an injunction have undisputedly been met.59 The irreparable injury necessary to warrant injunctive relief is clear, as the First and Fourth Amendment rights of Plaintiffs are violated by the TSP. See Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479 (1965). The irreparable injury conversely sustained by Defendants under this injunction may be rectified by compliance with our Constitution and/or statutory law, as amended if necessary. Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution.

As Justice Warren wrote in U.S. v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (1967):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 makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile. Id. at 264
IT IS SO ORDERED
One basis of appeal is standing -- that is, whether the plaintiffs have the right to sue. As I understand it, "no harm no foul." That is, if the plaintiffs cannot show that they've been harmed (i.e., no proof that they've been tapped), then they cannot bring a case. The judge recognizes that to deny standing on this basis completely removes the program from judicial review:




Although this court is persuaded that Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient injury to establish standing, it is important to note that if the court were to deny standing based on the unsubstantiated minor distinctions drawn by Defendants, the President's actions in warrantless wiretapping, in contravention of FISA, Title III, and the First and Fourth Amendments, would be immunized from judicial scrutiny. It was never the intent of the Framers to give the President such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and balance for one another. It is within the court's duty to ensure that power is never "condense[d] ... into a single branch of government." Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 536 (2004) (plurality opinion). We must always be mindful that "[w]hen the President takes official action, the Court has the authority to determine whether he has acted within the law." Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 703 (1997). "It remains one of the most vital functions of this Court to police with care the separation of the governing powers . . . . When structure fails, liberty is always in peril." Public Citizen v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 468 (1989) (Kennedy, J., concurring).


Because of the very secrecy of the activity here challenged, Plaintiffs each must be and are given standing to challenge it, because each of them, is injured and chilled substantially in the exercise of First Amendment rights so long as it continues. Indeed, as the perceived need for secrecy has apparently required that no person be notified that he is aggrieved by the activity, and there have been no prosecutions, no requests for extensions or retroactive approvals of warrants, no victim in America would be given standing to challenge this or any other unconstitutional activity, according to the Government. The activity has been acknowledged, nevertheless.



Whether the ruling stands remains to be seen. Stay tuned...

The only thing I could see saving the Administration against this decision, is if this was a "Declared war", rather than a "use of military force" situation.
I can't imagine that the same civil liberties are in effect during a "declared war".
Could you imagine the reaction now days to a WWII era blackout?

The only thing I could see saving the Administration against this decision, is if this was a "Declared war", rather than a "use of military force" situation.
I can't imagine that the same civil liberties are in effect during a "declared war".
Could you imagine the reaction now days to a WWII era blackout?

Could you imagine that an air raid drill that required a person to close blackout curtains and the difference between your phone calls being tapped into?

Once again you compared apples to monkee shit!

Civil liberties have been regurlarly suspended in wartime.

http://www.plu.edu/~cvlright/history/home.html

In order for Americans to clearly understand the current struggle between protecting our civil rights and protecting our homeland, it is necessary for us to look back and examine history. Similar issues have presented themselves in history during times of wartime crisis. Beginning with President Lincoln's suspension of the Writ of Habeus, the government has found it necessary to comprimise certain civil liberties in order to ensure national security. To look back at measures taken in the past that may have infringed upon civil liberties, is to have an informed perspective on current issues. Doing so allows for an understanding of what policies have worked and what mistakes should never be repeated.

A lot of fluff and very little meat in that opinion. Too much law clerk writing :( . Ah well, we'll see what the 6th Circuit does. Hopefully they'll go directly to an en banc ruling.

Civil liberties have been regurlarly suspended in wartime.

http://www.plu.edu/~cvlright/history/home.html

And almost every single thing in that link has been determined to be a black mark on this country...WOW...I cannot believe that people actually think these things are good.

We are not at war.

We have no defined enemy.

Forget it...I'm gonna give up on you.

I never said we were at war.
I never said we have a defined enemy.
I said that in the past, civil liberties had been suspended in a time of war. I also inferred that if this was a declared war, that would be the only way this Administration might be able to fight the judge's decision.
I also made a comment eluding to the point that I didn't think today's society would be able to have the discipline that the society had in World War II in regards to things as black outs.
While many of those things in that link are a "black mark" on this country, they were necessary for the time.
You are looking at the past through the filters of today. Of course you are going to say "How horrible!" You have the luxury of looking back and seeing what they did was unnecessary.
So if you give up on me, does this mean I win the Internet?

I never said we were at war.
I never said we have a defined enemy.
I said that in the past, civil liberties had been suspended in a time of war. I also inferred that if this was a declared war, that would be the only way this Administration might be able to fight the judge's decision.
I also made a comment eluding to the point that I didn't think today's society would be able to have the discipline that the society had in World War II in regards to things as black outs.
While many of those things in that link are a "black mark" on this country, they were necessary for the time.
You are looking at the past through the filters of today. Of course you are going to say "How horrible!" You have the luxury of looking back and seeing what they did was unnecessary.
So if you give up on me, does this mean I win the Internet?


no...you said this:

Civil liberties have been regurlarly suspended in wartime.

You are right Rover, I never said:

The only thing I could see saving the Administration against this decision, is if this was a "Declared war", rather than a "use of military force" situation.
I can't imagine that the same civil liberties are in effect during a "declared war".
Could you imagine the reaction now days to a WWII era blackout?

You should actually read the posts. I answered the one you quoted above previously.

The post you are referencing of mine is the one where I responded to:

Civil liberties have been regurlarly suspended in wartime.

You see, when one responds to the "inane drivel" you post it can become quite confusing as we are not used to operating within such sub par parameters.

Could you imagine that an air raid drill that required a person to close blackout curtains and the difference between your phone calls being tapped into?

I don't see phone calls with known enemies of the nation as being protected by any statute.

Nervous nelly much omg


Fandros

Read FISA. And if they are known enemies, why skip the judicial process? What is the executive trying to hide? Why are you willing to give it unfettered power to spy on anyone they wish without oversight? After the Padilla case (not to mention lying about the program on multiple occasions), how can you trust the administration to be spying on "known enemies of the nation" rather than simply people they don't like? The Founders never intended the executive to have such power out of sight of the other branches of the government.

If it's a known enemy of the nation you're calling, they should have no problem securing a warrant with proper judicial approval.

If it's a known enemy of the nation you're calling, they should have no problem securing a warrant with proper judicial approval.

If it is a known enemy one would think they would want to have the warrant to be sure the case is not blown on that technicality.

That's assuming the case ever comes to a public trial after everyone concerned is shipped to an extraterritorial prison for (eventual) judgement by a secret military tribunal. Get with the program, Byl!

Well I guess its because its just downright unpatriotic to do it that way. Bush said either you are with us or against us, that pretty much means if you don't agree then you must be a terrorist or at least a supporter of terrorism...its the same thing if you vote democrat, or any other party thats not republican...so the best thing is to monitor everyone.

Its so obvious that Bush has a grand plan which is that there is no plan, because if you have a plan then you risk having the enemy know your plan and if that happens then you're sunk...but we'll never be sunk without a plan that they can't steal from us.

It took me 3 years but I think I figured it out.

Bush said either you are with us or against us, that pretty much means if you don't agree then you must be a terrorist or at least a supporter of terrorism...

Well, although I am much less eloquent than Friedman(sp), I would have to ask Bush and his faithful companion "Wonder-Dick" why they are willing to support terrorists via their protections of the oil industry.....

Seems everytime Dick and Bush get together we all end up getting screwed....

Unless you are making the large money. I am not, so I am not with Bush, so I must be the enemy.

It is all too confusing. We have a program for tapping phones with warrants, but they don't want to have to get warrants because they would have to give a secret panel of judges secret information about the secret program's targets, who may or may not be secretly doing something wrong, which we won't know until the secret wiretap reveals their secret conversations.:confused:

Really, all joking aside. It is a very scary thing to watch us lose our democracy, the very thing which a good portion of us here dedicated part of our youth in protecting. The shame of it is that we aren't losing it to an enemy, we are losing it to our elected officials, it would be easier to understand if it was an enemy that was taking it from us.

I've said it before and I can't for the life of me understand why so many Americans are willing to place all of the power into the hands of so few, meaning Bush and Cheney. Two men who view the law as nothing more than an extension of politics. The arrogance is stunning, remember when asked if their invasion of Iraq was legal Bush answered "Is it legal? Oh my, I'd better call my lawyer." That is not the answer of a president, it is the answer of an ignorant, arrogant fool.

The administrations theory of the "unitary executive" where the President in effect can veto laws after signing them into law and when asked how this can be answers "because we are at war" a war with no end, a war that can't end and they have assured us of that by creating laws that define what was once normal dissent to policies as almost being an act of war against the government but there are no legal charges pressed against those who have broken these "laws" just detention. No formal charges, only rhetorical babble from the attorney general.

Somewhere along the line Bush has, either by choice or ignorance, forgotten that he is the commander in chief of the military, not of the nation. In our country there is no single authority in government at least that is the way it was for the previous 200+ years even through times of war. Why that isn't deemed good enough now is perplexing to say the least.

They use the tragedy of 9/11 as a tool to engage in illegal behavior and have convinced a large portion of the citizens of this country to place more importance on that day than to place on 200+ years of democracy and the constitution and the people eat it up, hook line and sinker.

Coming from parents of the WWII generation I find it most interesting to see how it is compared to our current environment, people speak about how during that time of declared war our citizens were forced to give up civil liberties, this really isn't true. Those who were in the military were subject to having their letters home screened by military censors, but this was for real security. The letters from home were not read by the censors. There were laws passed for gas rationing, metal collection laws and programs that benefitted the war effort and the huge supply effort needed to keep industry producing the vast amounts of equipment and supplies.

I know from the many talks I had with both my parents and grand-parents that the situation we are in has little if any comparison to WWII but I understand why this administration will use the past to justify the present, but understanding it will never make it right.

It is a very scary thing to watch us lose our democracy, the very thing which a good portion of us here dedicated part of our youth in protecting. The shame of it is that we aren't losing it to an enemy, we are losing it to our elected officials, it would be easier to understand if it was an enemy that was taking it from us.


Power corrupts. Even the most well intentioned person is 1 step from being a Benevolent Dictator.

I've said it before and I can't for the life of me understand why so many Americans are willing to place all of the power into the hands of so few, meaning Bush and Cheney.

My only BS question to you is this:
If it were Kerry and Edwards or Gore and Lieberman that were doing the same thing, would you still be in an uproar about it?

There were laws passed for gas rationing, metal collection laws and programs that benefitted the war effort and the huge supply effort needed to keep industry producing the vast amounts of equipment and supplies.

There was also rationing of food. You don't think being told by the government what you can and cannot eat on any given day isn't giving up a Civil Liberty?
WAKE UP!

My only BS question to you is this:
If it were Kerry and Edwards or Gore and Lieberman that were doing the same thing, would you still be in an uproar about it?
We wouldn't have to worry about it, as the Republicans would have impeached.

"people speak about how during that time of declared war our citizens were forced to give up civil liberties, this really isn't true."

Are you really that ignorant?

Go read Korematsu v. United States and tell me our citizens didn't give up civil liberties. And that was authorized by a Democrat. Hell while on the subject of unitary executive, you should take a look at the power grab by ole FDR. He's the closest thing this country has had to a "benevolent" dictator. Don't like a Supreme Court decision? Just threaten the court and the decisions will start coming your way.

Habeas corpus (Art. I, Sec. 9) a power of Congress? Hell no if you're Lincoln, let's suspend it. And then, when Chief Justice Taney issues a writ against your order, just ignore it.

I am sure looking back through history you hold FDR and Lincoln with as much disdain as you hold our current President. After all, he's just following their footsteps.

We
Are
Not
At
War

WANAW!

How much of your civil liberties are you willing to give up for "the War on Drugs" Furtivus?

We wouldn't have to worry about it, as the Republicans would have impeached.

Impeachment does not mean removal from office.
Regardless, I think the issue at hand is whether these actions are of a President who believes we are in a declaired war.
Perhaps he skipped the part about needing Congress's approval for a declaration of war.
Of course the precedent for the use of "military action" had been set way before G.W. took office.
But we should bash him, not the other Presidents that set the standard.

Impeachment does not mean removal from office.


Thor knows exactly what impeachment means. His point is that they would not have sat idly by, fat, dumb and happy, whistling dixie while George III attempted to completely sidestep the separation of powers fundamental to our state. And it's not like other presidents have not been bashed, nor taken huge excesses with their office (Clinton being a great example, but I'll bet none of the Bush apologists can give a REAL example, because he was so much better at getting away with it), but ragging on Truman and LBJ serves little except to remind people like you how little they know about history.

Of course, Korematsu and <whichever ruling suspended habeus corpus in Lincoln's time> are widely held to be among the worst decisions ever rendered. Hopefully, we don't have to endure analogous, judicially approved abridgements of civil liberty in support of errant, fear-based policy from our leadership.

It's not support; it's the hypocrisy of the matter. Do you have as much disdain and contempt for FDR and Lincoln as you do for Bush? What Bush is accused of doing is far less than what FDR and Lincoln did and yet I suspect most Bush haters would rate FDR and Lincoln as great Presidents.
Lincoln fought an illegal war against a sovereign nation that did not attack us. He approved of outrageous human atrocities. He suspended civil liberties and ignored Supreme Court opinions. He completely bungled the illegal war causing it to last far longer than it should at a terrifying cost. He was a failure as a politician that just happened to get elected by others calling the real shots. Sounds almost identical to the accusations thrown aginst Bush doesn't it?

Korematsu doesn't really register on the bad opinion scale. The habeus corpus opinion is certainly not "among the worst decision ever rendered." It's actually a pretty good opinion written solely by Taney. Lincoln, however, ignored it. No opinions however bad they may be approach Dred Scott level of badness.

As for WANAW, if that's the case why are there so many damn anti-war protesters and "peace" rallies? Why do Democrats keep stating they're "against the war"? WANAW you dumb candidates.

It's not support; it's the hypocrisy of the matter. Do you have as much disdain and contempt for FDR and Lincoln as you do for Bush?


In principle, yes. In practice, no, because there isn't much you can do about it now, versus Bush. It's also highly disingenous to present the situations Lincoln and FDR were reacting to as at all similiar to what we're "suffering" today ... especially considering the same cabal as currently in power created our current enemies through equally bad policy thirty years ago.

"people speak about how during that time of declared war our citizens were forced to give up civil liberties, this really isn't true."

Are you really that ignorant?

Go read Korematsu v. United States and tell me our citizens didn't give up civil liberties. And that was authorized by a Democrat. Hell while on the subject of unitary executive, you should take a look at the power grab by ole FDR. He's the closest thing this country has had to a "benevolent" dictator. Don't like a Supreme Court decision? Just threaten the court and the decisions will start coming your way.

Habeas corpus (Art. I, Sec. 9) a power of Congress? Hell no if you're Lincoln, let's suspend it. And then, when Chief Justice Taney issues a writ against your order, just ignore it.

I am sure looking back through history you hold FDR and Lincoln with as much disdain as you hold our current President. After all, he's just following their footsteps.

I'm well aware of the assault on the liberties of the japanese americans in WWII. My post was in obvious general terms. I chose not to do a comparison of the civil liberties that are stepped on for Arab americans and Japanese americans, as that was not what I was answering in my post.

Many of the instances in the past where a President has made a decision to do the things you have mentioned it has been determined that these are black marks on our history, so I'm not sure as to what point you are trying to prove to me. Often times the experiences of the average citizens are not viewed the same as they are by attorneys who's sole interest might be the opinion of a court.

Comparing the actions of Lincoln in time of civil war to Bush in time of no war is bordering on ridiculous and begs me to ask...are you really that ignorant?

As for WANAW, if that's the case why are there so many damn anti-war protesters and "peace" rallies? Why do Democrats keep stating they're "against the war"? WANAW you dumb candidates.

Just because people are killing each other, that doesnt mean its a war. War is the clashing of civilizations and peoples. War is the marshalling of resources and sacrifice of the entirety of the populace to provide that which is needed for victory.
How did Japanese imported good sell in the US in 1942? How about German?
Yet here we are, happily pumping gallon after gallon into our tanks, fattening the pockets of our enemies.

You think Hezbollah would have started a war against Israel with 2.00/gallon gas?

Besides, those anti war protestors arent saying "Dont go after Bin Laden".. They are pretty much saying "Get out of Iraq". Which is not a war, its an occupation.

Comparing the actions of Lincoln in time of civil war to Bush in time of no war is bordering on ridiculous and begs me to ask...are you really that ignorant?

It "borders on ridiculous", because you don't agree with it.
It's a valid viewpoint, and an apt compairson.
Both Lincoln and Bush had been thrust into an extraordinary situation. Both dealt with it as they saw fit.
The difference? Lincoln's actions are viewed through the filter of history. Bush's actions are in the here and now, with the unblinking eye of the 24 hour news media that doesn't have 24 hours of news to report.
Ever ponder how good of a President Lincoln would have been percieved if CNN had been around back then?
And whether the actions of either were in a wartime situation or not are irrelevant. Just as a soldier cannot commit murder in a wartime situation, a President cannot ignore one of the branches that checks his power just because a war is happening.

It "borders on ridiculous", because you don't agree with it.
It's a valid viewpoint, and an apt compairson.
Both Lincoln and Bush had been thrust into an extraordinary situation. Both dealt with it as they saw fit.
The difference? Lincoln's actions are viewed through the filter of history. Bush's actions are in the here and now, with the unblinking eye of the 24 hour news media that doesn't have 24 hours of news to report.
Ever ponder how good of a President Lincoln would have been percieved if CNN had been around back then?
And whether the actions of either were in a wartime situation or not are irrelevant. Just as a soldier cannot commit murder in a wartime situation, a President cannot ignore one of the branches that checks his power just because a war is happening.

Yep...and the scariest part is we are not at war right now.

Someone check and see if the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse are riding around. Rover and I agreed on something.
I fear that the end of the world may be imminent.

"Many of the instances in the past where a President has made a decision to do the things you have mentioned it has been determined that these are black marks on our history, so I'm not sure as to what point you are trying to prove to me."

I'm trying to show (1) those black marks are a lot blacker than what is going on today and (2) those Presidents are generally regarded favorably -- particularly by the harshest critics of this administration.

As for creating enemies, that same could be said for Lincoln and some extent FDR. Lincoln created the war to consolidate power in the federal government and the Presidency in particular.

"Yep...and the scariest part is we are not at war right now."

Tell that to all these idiot candidates trying to run on an "anti-war" platform like Lamont. We are not at war you idiot. WANAWYI.

In other (more germane) news, the torch bearer for the liberals reports criticism of the recent opinion -- http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/19/washington/19ruling.html?ex=1313640000&en=5f8f4ba4ca8ad621&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Not a lot of meat in the opinion indeed....

Tell that to all these idiot candidates trying to run on an "anti-war" platform like Lamont. We are not at war you idiot.

Bush = War. Thats the simple political equation. If its true in his mind, then the people who disagree with his belief are anti "war".

Besides, War is a usable term that will suffice until someone in the White House figures out wtf we are doing anyway.
Other than illegally increase executive power, they really dont seem to have a strategy. Jesus never descended from heaven and delived Democracy to Iraq and they never had a Plan B.

I mean, that must have been it, that must have been the plan to deliver the so called "Miracle of Democracy". Dont actually DO anything, just have blind faith and the Baby Jeebus will make everything OK!

Bush = War. Thats the simple political equation. If its true in his mind, then the people who disagree with his belief are anti "war".


So what I said earlier is true. The actions he has taken are because he believes we are at war, formal declaration or not.
Someone should inform him (unless there has been a big change in things since I learned about our government) that Congress needs to ratify a formal declaration.
That might not satisfy his harshest opponents, but it would take away the ammunition of claiming that this is an "illegal war".

"War is a usable term that will suffice"

WANAW.

Yea.
Let me explain it to you, this may be fruitless as the depth of your denial is very deep and you are well fortified against logic.

What is below?
http://gammablog.com/gammablablog/images/12-03/bush-plastic-turkey.jpg

Some people may say its a turkey... It looks like a turkey, and people in the Bush Administration REALLY want you to believe its a turkey... But its not, its a plastic prop designed to influence public opinion through a orchestrated illusion.

Maybe we can call this Iraq thing "The Plastic Turkey" instead. Would that make you feel better?

I wouldn't call it a turkey.
I'd call it the Commander-in-Chief.
:D
Regardless if it's plastic or not, that Soldier in the background weaing the body armor looks like he's about to chow down on it.

As for creating enemies, that same could be said for Lincoln and some extent FDR. Lincoln created the war to consolidate power in the federal government and the Presidency in particular.


Yes, there was no civil discontent fomenting in the South until Lincoln funded and trained extremist rednecks in Alabama ... How far are you going to have to stretch this to try and make Bush's executive excesses look good by comparision? And more importantly, why? If you successfully argue that FDR was debately worse, that makes doing another wrong "righter" in your mind? This is the "But Clinton!" refrain taken to a disturbing new low.

What people think of Bush after a hundred years of American mythological deformation is entirely irrelevant to the fact that he's fucking up the country (and world) we live in RIGHT NOW.

Originally Posted by Furtivus
As for creating enemies, that same could be said for Lincoln and some extent FDR. Lincoln created the war to consolidate power in the federal government and the Presidency in particular.

You forgot about that Fort Sumter thing.

I never said what Bush was doing was right; only that those criticizing him are hypocrits.

"What people think of Bush after a hundred years of American mythological deformation is entirely irrelevant to the fact that he's fucking up the country (and world) we live in RIGHT NOW."

Is it truly irrelevant though? If 50 years from now Bush is compared favorably with FDR and Lincoln (both of whom royally fucked up the country at the time), is that fact, assuming true, completely irrelevant? I certainly think it would add some much needed perspective.

"You forgot about that Fort Sumter thing."

No I didn't. What about Fort Sumter? It was an unwanted fort in a foreign nation.

"depth of your denial"

What denial? You're the one that said we are not at war. I was just being agreeable.

If 50 years from now Bush is compared favorably with FDR and Lincoln

HAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA <gasp> HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA
</drinks sip of milk> HAHAHAH <Milk comes out of nose> HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAH
<Chortle>
Ahem...

http://www.rofl.name/asciiart/LMFAOTrain.gif

Ok, Furt, two things please:

First, please explain to me how I am a hypocrite simply because I exercise the chance to criticize Bush at every opportunity; you made a pretty sweeping generalization, so I need some clarification.


Second, please refresh my memory and tell me what the foreign nation was where Fort Sumter was located.

Thanks.

It would be hypocritical if we all had invaded a foriegn nation without cause and then spoke about how Bush is wrong for doing the same thing. I don't recall myself or anyone here having ordered the US Military to invade anywhere...at least no one here is fessing up to having done so.

We are simply exercising our right to dissent on a very serious yet uncomplicated issue which is "don't attack a country that wasn't a threat to your country or the countries you have a MDP with."

The hypocrisy is ranking FDR and Lincoln in the list of greatest President's ever. Here, for example, puts FDR and Lincoln in the top 3!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents

And yet those two are responsible for some of the most horrendous and egregious violations of civil rights and crimes against U.S. citizens, and constitutional violations of any other Presidents we have had including the current one.

As for the location of Fort Sumter, it is in Charleston, South Carolina. I assumed Rover was referring to the time when South Carolina was not a part of the United States.

FDR noted for:

Leadership during World War II and Great Depression, New Deal, rural electrification, Social Security, Japanese American internment, Lend-Lease program


Lincoln noted for:

Emancipation Proclamation, American Civil War leadership, Homestead Act, Gettysburg Address.



So really, lets take a look at what Bush will be noted for.

Lack of leadership in an undeclared war, allowing the vice president to have a secret energy policy, vetoing only 1 bill,

Honestly....just way to much to type ATM

One can deplore certain specific behaviors of leaders while at the same time lauding them for actions that strengthened and greatened the US. There is no hypocrisy in this, even while castigating Bush on his multitude of blunders or specifically on his violations of law, Constitution and civil rights. What, are we to wait 50 years to render an opinion on current affairs?

I'm also not sure why Furtivus is attacking members of this forum for an opinion found in Wikipedia (or even held generally). But from someone who has compared others to Mengele yet wrote approvingly of John Yoo's pro-torture analysis, and who has berated those who disagreed with him for not reading a judicial decision while lauding another who read an article at CNN.com, charges of hypocrisy don't amount to much.

I never said what Bush was doing was right; only that those criticizing him are hypocrits.


If it makes you feel any better, I'm right there with you knowing that the Emancipation Proclamation was largely a method of ensuring European support for the North in the Civil War and that Lincoln wasn't that great of a leader. How exactly that has anything to do with unconstitutional, unambiguously unethical, and decidely Soviet domestic spying so obviously intended for every purpose but the one they sell it on still escapes me.

When you place today's standards on past Presidents, all of them can be VERY lacking.
Bush is President in a time when the Commander-in-Chief must know how to sit, roll over, and jump through a flaming hoop, simultaneously.
He's not a great President, but history will put him in the ranks with Lincoln and FDR, if nothing else, because he was President when America was attacked.
There may be an asterisk by his name for whatever reason (he "stole" 2 elections, started a "conflict" he couldn't resolve, ect).

He's not a great President, but history will put him in the ranks with Lincoln and FDR, if nothing else, because he was President when America was attacked.


He was president when America was attacked, and he did a Bush Sr. attempt of going after the people responsible, meaning he stopped before finishing the mission; instead, rather than remain doggedly after OBL he went after the leader of Iraq who attempted to kill his daddy, using bullshit rationale to justify his intent.

He has embroiled American troops in a conflict that was poorly planned, and which is open-ended without any clear-cut goals which will allow the troops to return home, or at the least to return to the original reason we went to the region, which is the fight against terrorism. Iraq has nothing to do with that fight. He is now having to call up reserves, due to how thinly he has stretched the Marines, and the lack of people willing to volunteer anymore, seeing how the agreements made are so easily broken.

The claims that we are fighting terrorists in Iraq are bogus, because the only ones that are fighting there against us are doing so as a direct result of our occupation of Muslim Holy Lands. We have removed the one leader in the region that was keeping Iran in check, and whether he deserved to be taken down is not the point; but, that he was a lunatic who was willing to be as brutal as the situation required (in his eyes) was the main reason Iran exercised some restraint. Now, Iran is more than likely going to be walking into Iraq as soon as the occupying forces have all left.

Bush has been fairly outspoken in his "my way or the highway" philosophy, alienating many former allies. This has affected not just military but trade relations as well.

Regardless of previous Presidents and the good and bad they have on their records, Bush has very, very little positive to show for his term in office.

Maybe that will be the asterisk, then.
Im not sure what you mean by the Bush Sr., crack, though.
Unless you are talking about the Gulf War I.
The mission there was accomplished, we pushed Iraq out of Kuwait.
Unless you are under the misguided notion that we were supposed to go to Baghdad, that was not part of the mission.
The Arab countries that supported us at the time, wouldn't have gone for that plan.

Hindsight is is 20/20....

I think at the time Bush Sr. had little choice but to stop and not go after Saddam.....

He couldn't have forseen his idiot son and his "retards humping a doorknob" cabinet fucking up and going into Iraq down the road. Not helping the Shi'a get rid of Saddam durring Desert storm hurt what we are doing today....it weakened considerable trust with that faction in Iraq (as well as costing many Shi'a lives).

Now we are in a money hemmoraging no win situation in Iraq...thanks to this gaggle of fuckups in Washington.

Im not sure what you mean by the Bush Sr., crack, though.
Unless you are talking about the Gulf War I.


Bush Sr. had assured the Kurds he would suport them in their attempt to overthrow Saddam. They received no support and got their asses handed to them, costing us dearly in relations with certain groups in the region.

Yes, But when he did, All the other Arab countries started making noises about pulling out of the coalition. So it really wasn't his fault. He had to play a fine line, and settled with Pushing Iraqi troops out of Kwuait.
We did offer aid and support after the fact. That's what Operations Provide Comfort I/II/III were all about.

nice to see the tread got derailed like it usually does.. but lets get back to the case at hand. What this case really showed was how fucked up the judicial system is and how it is trying to control the executive branch. It amazes me how fast they rebuke any attempt for the executive brach to bypass the judicial, but the judicial branch likes to influence and enforce policies on the executive.

Another thing I cannot stand is how people can "judge shop" until they find one that will rule in thier favor. And this is CLEARLY a case of that..

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/michigan/index.ssf?/base/news-37/115629324169900.xml&storylist=newsmichigan

They need to change how federal judges do not have to answer to the people for decisions they make.. term limits..

nice to see the tread got derailed like it usually does.. but lets get back to the case at hand. What this case really showed was how fucked up the judicial system is and how it is trying to control the executive branch.


I think you need a constitutional law refresher. That's exactly and and specifically what the judicial branch is supposed to do, control the other two branches, just like the other two branches control it. Hint: Only one of the three branches has been attempting to do an endrun around the two others by both implementing and interpreting laws as they see fit (in secret, no less, fully in contrivance of the constitution EVEN IF its actions had been legal otherwise), and it starts with E.

The only thing fucked up here is that our country is so far gone that anyone finds Stalinesque domestic spying defensible in the first place.

Accountability? Perish the thought! Those things aren't generally accepted in today's society.
If you listen to the prevailing thinking in today's society, we are just ramdom motes, without any accountability or responsibility for the actions we take. Why should we hold judges to any standard other than what we impose upon ourselves?
Oh, and the party that isn't in power, doesn't like that way of thinking. Of course they are smarter, and more knowledgeable of what's best for the American People. If you take away the ability of legislating from the bench, rather than enforcing the law, there would be no recourse for them.
If a federal judge has no way of being thrown out for the decisions that they make, you might as well appoint a Dictator-for-Life.

Accountability FTW.

What is fucked up Malse (other then you warped mind), is that the other two branches are ultimately held accountable thru the election process. Federal judges have ZERO accountability. They are suppose to be neutral, but that is the failure of the system, as many are not.. as in this case.

Another thing I cannot stand is how people can "judge shop" until they find one that will rule in thier favor. And this is CLEARLY a case of that..
Here (http://www.uscourts.gov/guide/vol2/ch1.html#5) is the Code of Conduct for federal judges that Judicial Watch links to; can you find a breach of conduct therein?

Furthermore, judges rarely come to the bench having lived in a vacuum free of participation in advocacy groups or causes they believe in, whether it's some level of involvement in the ACLU, membership in the Federalist Society, or roles in any of the thousands of advocacy groups in this country that regularly take part in lawsuits as plaintiffs, defendents, or amici. You might as well claim that Justices Alito and Roberts shouldn't participate in any cases brought by the current DOJ due to their appointment by Bush.

Federal judges are appointed by your elected officials in two other branches via a well defined and public process, they don't spawn upriver of Washington and swim down to frolick. Of course, your solution of term limits would do ... absolutely nothng to prevent "judge shopping" in various districts either, but hey, you heard it on talk radio so it must be true.

What is fucked up Malse (other then you warped mind), is that the other two branches are ultimately held accountable thru the election process.
And yet you seem to want the President to not be held accountable.
Federal judges have ZERO accountability. They are suppose to be neutral, but that is the failure of the system, as many are not.. as in this case.
You have yet to demonstrate any sort of lack of neutrality or breach of conduct. Have you even read the decision? That you don't understand the reason for life appointments in the judiciary is astounding, though given your apparent support for unbridled executive power, it's not surprising.

Once again I disagree Malse.. Like politicians, if something they vote on, or in the case of judges rule on, is something that affects the Majority negatively, then they would think twice about ruling that way. Now I am sure I will hear the expected "well the majority is not always right", but 9 out of 10 times they are. But let me throw another one out there.. how about the Delay case.. HOW many different grand jurys heard that case before one took it?

Thor, yes.. you are right sort of.. but unlike the two SCOTUS members you mentioned, this judge is STILL the treasurer for this organization, so still has ties.



B. Civic and Charitable Activities. A judge may participate in civic and charitable activities that do not reflect adversely upon the judge's impartiality or interfere with the performance of judicial duties. A judge may serve as an officer, director, trustee, or non-legal advisor of an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization not conducted for the economic or political advantage of its members, subject to the following limitations:

(1) A judge should not serve if it is likely that the organization will be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the judge or will be regularly engaged in adversary proceedings in any court.

and yes.. I am sure she sees alot of cases for the ACLU

Once again I disagree Malse.. Like politicians, if something they vote on, or in the case of judges rule on, is something that affects the Majority negatively, then they would think twice about ruling that way.
This betrays a terrible ignorance of our constitutional system, particularly the Bill of Rights that our President so casually flouts.

And again, where in the Judicial Code of Conduct that Judicial Watch linked to shows this to be a conflict of interest of any sort, other than a conflict with your (and other "conservatives") view of unitary executive power?

Once again I disagree Malse.. Like politicians, if something they vote on, or in the case of judges rule on, is something that affects the Majority negatively, then they would think twice about ruling that way.

Ironically this has not played out in practice in either case, and like Thor said, you don't seem to understand some rather fundamental tenets of our constitutional system. Judicial decisions are implicitly NOT about majority opinion, they're about the LAW. If you want the LAW changed, there is an public, accountable system for changing it. It's called the Congress. Somebody broke THE LAW by changing THE LAW without the CONGRESS being involved, and a judge called them on it. Making decisions about whether or not any given action is "right" isn't the judiciary's job -- they make decisions about whether or not it was LEGAL.

Since I'm in a double ironic mood this morning, try this on: I'm in favor of both congressional and judicial term limits (and mandatory sunsets on all legislation). However, that wouldn't accomplish the goal you want, which is apparently to grant card-carrying Republican presidents any power they want.

Thor,

What I see wrong is that this judge is a member of the board of an organization that donates LARGE amounts of money to the ACLU then turns around and hears cases for them. That is wrong no matter how you look at it. This judge also made the news when she tried to force herself onto the University of Michigan case about how they are able to choose a less qualified minority over a white student who has better scores based on "diversity". That is bullshit, and she deserves to be held accountable.

Judges are immune to corruption, aren't they?
No wait, unless you are appointed by the President, and your name is Gonzalez and you hold conservative viewpoints, then you are corrupt.
If "Slick Willy" appointed you, then you are immune.
So if the Congress is held in the Majority by the Republicans, why would the President need to go around them?

What I see wrong is that this judge is a member of the board of an organization that donates LARGE amounts of money to the ACLU then turns around and hears cases for them. That is wrong no matter how you look at it.
What would be wrong (and an actual conflict of interest) is a situation in which the judge (or a friend or family member) would stand to benefit from the ruling of the case. Again, judges are regularly donors or members of foundations or advocacy groups, from political parties to the NRA to Alliance Defense Fund to what have you. The rules are set up to allow this without entailing conflict of interest. If you don't like those rules, work to get them changed.

As for the HUDGE amounts of money given to the ACLU, not quite. The ACLU received about $125k over 7 years. In the last year, the Community Foundation of which the judge is part gave out millions (http://www.cfsem.org/press_room/news.html) in grants. The portion given to the ACLU is a drop in the bucket, and very likely something which the judge has little to no control over.

"Only one of the three branches has been attempting to do an endrun around the two others by both implementing and interpreting laws as they see fit..."

Malse, you just gave a great summary of the judicial branch for the last 40 years. Nicely done.

Some states elect their judges rather than have them appointed by politicians. We've become accustomed to the way the federal judges are appointed and approved, but I haven't seen any arguments that method leads to a better quality judicial system than direct election with term limits. Nevertheless, much like the electoral system (another indirect way of appointing a position) it's likely here to stay.

Judge shopping is unavoidable. Most districts implement a random assignment within a pool of judges in the district to eliminate specific judge selection, but the plaintiff has always been allowed to choose the district (assuming all jurisdictional and forum requirements are met).

As to the ACLU donation, it was not wrong for her to have sat on the board that gave money to the ACLU. It was wrong for her to hide it and not disclose it. She should have given the defendants an opportunity to decide whether to challenge her on that basis. Undisclosed potential conflicts are much more troublesome for a judge than disclosed actual conflicts.

Undisclosed potential conflicts are much more troublesome for a judge than disclosed actual conflicts.

Yeah, it kind of makes you wonder, what else is she hiding?