More reaction to Thursday's surveillance ruling
Jack Balkin, here.
Marty Lederman, here.
Scotusblog roundup of legal analysis and newspaper editorial opinions, here. (Scotusblog, which focuses mainly on the Supreme Court's rulings, didn't analyze the district-court ruling itself.)
A consensus is emerging among the people who actually know what they are talking about, all along the political spectrum: The judge's ruling was rushed (possibly to preclude the case's being consolidated with another in California). It was more a kitchen-sink summation than a model of analytical grace. On some issues, particularly standing and the First Amendment finding, it's kind of wobbly. Relatedly, it didn't even refer to the Supreme Court's June Hamdan ruling, which demolished the administration's legal and constitutional defenses for the program. But it got the big picture right.
UPDATE (8/21): Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University who has testified before Congress against the NSA program, concurs ... and follows that analysis to its logical conclusion:
While Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales insists that the legal authority for the program is clear and filed a notice of appeal with the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, few experts outside of the Bush administration support the program. To the contrary, federal law seems perfectly clear in prohibiting warrantless surveillance. ...The far more difficult question is the implication of Taylor's ruling. If this court is upheld or other courts follow suit, it will leave us with a most unpleasant issue that Democrats and Republicans alike have sought to avoid. Here it is: If this program is unlawful, federal law expressly makes the ordering of surveillance under the program a federal felony. That would mean that the president could be guilty of no fewer than 30 felonies in office. Moreover, it is not only illegal for a president to order such surveillance, it is illegal for other government officials to carry out such an order. ...
The question of the president's possible criminal acts has long been the pig in the parlor that polite people in Congress refused to acknowledge. ... Certainly, nobody wants to mention the "I" word, particularly not the Democrats who believe that the threat of impeachment could scare away independent voters in the November elections.
Court decisions, however, may make it increasingly difficult for members to ignore a squealing constitutional violation in their midst.
For those who favor impeachment, are you really willing to put the country through that? For those who oppose it, do you really think it's a good idea to let a president get away with willful, intentional and serial felony violations of criminal law?
The pig is in the parlor, pooping on the carpet, ladies and gentlemen, so let us have this conversation.
Comments (6)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Don't you think you should put the words "suspected" or "alleged" or "possible" in front of this phrase:
"willful, intentional and serial felony violations of criminal law?"
The President has not been charged, tried, or convicted of anything. I believe you're violating your ethics and professional code of conduct to declare that someone HAS committed a crime in print when they haven't been convicted.
If a local man was only suspected of murder in our community would you print an article that said he'd committed "willful, intentional and serial felony violations of criminal law?" I doubt it.
Since you're writing this on the N&R website as a staffer for the N&R is this the official position of the News & Record? Did John Robinson sign off on you claiming the President had committed "willful, intentional and serial felony violations of criminal law?"
Posted on August 21, 2006 11:21 PM
I'm characterizing Turley's comments, jaycee, as you well know.
Tell me: What is it about my blog that scares you (and Sam S.) so much that you keep insisting I leave the newsroom? On the basis of your past commenting, it certainly doesn't seem to be any sincere concern for the integrity of the News & Record.
Posted on August 22, 2006 9:22 AM
Well, Lex, why don't you state that you're "characterizing" or something when you write things like this? You write it as if it's a fact when it's just someone's opinion. Unfortunately, some see you as a "reporter" or "journalist" instead of an opinion writer, and they actually believe what you write because it comes from a staffer at the N&R.
I guess I'm just incensed at seeing lies and deliberately misleading information being published by you and knowing that there are some that believe it. I think that's a travesty, and besmirches the rep of rest of the reporters down there who do an otherwise good job. I enjoy informed debate, but you twist and warp the truth in an effort to make others believe your liberal position. I just think somebody has to "call" you on it.
*sigh* I guess fighting the never-ending fight against untruth and injustice for the underdog is my life's calling.
Posted on August 22, 2006 9:38 AM
jaycee, it's funny how you seem to be the only one having any trouble understanding.
Memo: You don't get to just scream "liberal media!" around here and expect people to shut up. I'll stack my (old-school, not neo-) conservative/libertarian credentials up against anyone's.
And one last thing: Quit whining. Martyrdom does not become you.
Posted on August 22, 2006 9:47 AM
I understand perfectly what you're trying to do.
You present your opinions (and the opinions of those who agree with you) as facts when they aren't in order to try and bolster your liberal position.
You state as fact that the president has committed "willful, intentional and serial felony violations of criminal law" when you would NEVER make that statement about any other person only suspected of doing something illegal out of fear of lawsuits and revocation of your "journalist" credentials and loss of your job.
You lie, and want people to believe your lies. It just ain't gonna wash with me, I know the difference. So do many others who read your mutterings.
Posted on August 22, 2006 11:43 AM
Project much?
Posted on August 22, 2006 11:45 AM