About Me

My photo
This blog is the work of an educated civilian, not of an expert in the fields discussed.

Wednesday, July 09, 2008

"nation of men, not laws"

And Also: American and the Courts on C-SPAN last Saturday replayed Scalia's appearance with Brian Lamb in promotion of his new book on legal writing and such. He had to defend Bush v. Gore again -- he can't just say it was a tough case, but justices have to rule how they deem fit. He has to say we should forget about it, claim a key part was 7-2 (Breyer joined Stevens in full and Ginsburg dissented too ... um ...), claim we know it would go Bush's way anyway (nope), etc. Still, looks pretty good for a guy over 70.


Barack Obama's surrender on the FISA fight was a perfect example of giving in when fighting back could have accomplished so much more. Obama surrendered both his base and his convictions (He's a Constitutional law professor, for fuck's sake!) to please the chattering class of so-called "centrist" pundits and weed carriers who demand repeated obeisance to Republican and corporatist aims in order to appear Sensible, Serious, and Respectable. With a word, he could have roused his supporters and activists to fight this thing to the bitter end, and assured his place in history as an avatar of real change. Instead, he folded, and now it's hard to see him as anything more than a typical politician who promises whatever's politically convenient at the time.

-- Open Left

To add insult to injury, Sen. Clinton voted against the bill. Explain her away as a safe nay vote, we still have Senate titans like Feingold and Dodd strongly against this travesty, apparently because (to take the lede of Sen. Obama's original statement on why he was voting "yea") they don't care about keeping America safe. Plus over a hundred Dems in the House. Put up or shut-up when the chance to show some courage and principle arises. How sweet it was when the House Dems actually blocked this thing a few months back. But, it was but a cruel tease, and in place until 2012! Obama earned some disgust here fair and square, even if he doesn't think we matter.

Of special note, is the lies and bullshitting we have to take -- I don't like to be lied to or bullshitted, Mr. Obama. Not alone in that, either. Okay? BTW, a special "fu" to Rachel Maddow's fill-in, who let some apologist (whose family member works for a telecom!) get away with calling in and giving the "it's all about money" (non-profit public interest law firms) and 9/11 (lawless spying years after, though laws mattered on 9/12 too) talking points without comment. If you don't have the facts, facts repeated repeatedly by the usual sources on this topic, on this day in particular, you do not belong on a liberal talk show.

We are a nation of men, not laws, today. Weak men. One last thing. The depths of this legislation is underlined by the fact that the immunity provision was included even though we don't even know what exactly went on. An amendment to only provide immunity once a real investigation (and even then, in-house) occurs was voted down. It is therefore not surprising that even experts aren't quite sure what this legislation will mean in practice. There is an overall black box flavor to it all.

Our Democratic Congress and nominee in action! Timely book recommend: The Intruders: Unreasonable Searches and Seizures from King John to John Ashcroft by Samuel Dash. (He died shortly after publication, so cannot update the title.)