Is the Kool-Aid wearing off?

[ebonlock]

You be the judge:

…Well, the fact of the matter is that the Constitution is the Constitution, and I took an oath to abide by it. My good friend, my former colleague, Dana Rohrabacher, did and the president did. And I don’t really care very much whether or not it can be justified based on some hypothetical. The fact of the matter is that, if you have any government official who deliberately orders that federal law be violated despite the best of motives, that certainly ought to be of concern to us…

…Well, gee, I guess then the president should be able to ignore whatever provision in the Constitution as long as there’s something after the fact that justifies it…

…The fact of the matter is the law prohibits — specifically prohibits — what apparently was done in this case, and for a member of Congress to say, oh, that doesn’t matter, I’m proud that the president violated the law is absolutely astounding, Wolf…

Now, can you guess who said this in regards to Bush spying on the American public? Michael Moore, you say? Nope. Al Franken. Sorry, no cigar. But for those who guessed former Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA), ultra-conservative who hates him some gays and abortions, you win today's boobie prize (a virtual noogie for being such a know it all). Methinks Daddy Cheney had best check the formula on the mind-control drugs being freely distributed to all members of the GOP to keep them in such lock-step harmony. Something seems to be amiss.

via Shakespeare's Sister

Comments

[scoreboard.livejournal.com]

Not to deny him for being right this time, but Bob Barr's been a complete poo-hole from day one. Strangely, he only developed the sack to be concerned about government overreach once he wasn't actually a Republican officeholder.

Now, if he can influence a few of those invertebrates in the House majority to remember just how spastic they would be if it were a Clinton doing a gi-normous dump on the 4th Amendment, then I will give him appropriate credit. That was my biggest thought all weekend...that if this were 1999 and not 2005, the Republicans would be burning the White House to the ground with their screams about overreaching Gestapo federal agencies and the President's trampling on the rights of freedon-loving 'Murkins. Hell, you don't have to imagine it; just look at how the GOP fought against tagging fertilizer so it couldn't be used as a bomb in the wake of OKC.

Putting your team above everything else is fine if you're only talking about beating the Dallas Cowboys. It's not so great when you're talking about national security and civil rights.

All right. I can't think about this anymore or I will just flip out like a ninja. Time to go cell phone shopping.

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

It does make one wonder, though, if they're creating precedents for this kind of executive authority, doesn't it rather imply that they think they have a lock on the presidency for the foreseeable future? I mean can you imagine this kind of a move if they felt it likely that, say, Hillary would have these kinds of powers in their lifetime? Personally I find this kind of certainty on their part a little unnerving.

Eaxctly.

[scoreboard.livejournal.com]

The fact that they were willing to blow up the filibuster suggests that they don't ever anticipate losing Congress. The concentration of wartime power in the executive suggests that they don't ever see losing the Presidency - or an end to the war, for that matter. And the nature of the Supreme Court selections suggests that they think they can get all this signed off as Constitutional with a little more work.

And the fact that I already have a passport and friends in the Cotswolds keeps me from worrying too much. ;]

I assure you that when Senate Judiciary opens their hearings on Sam Alito, Roe will be the LAST thing on the agenda, which is something I never would have bet on even two weeks ago. And if one wanted to derail this nomination, a brawl over the Fourth Amendment is probably a much more reliable way to insure it.