I have no idea when Eric posted his comment on the "Supreme Court: continued" post, but Adam and I just came across it last night. Adam added another comment to that post. I would just like to clarify a couple of things regarding the wiretapping issue -
1 - I never said I was opposed to wiretapping. I merely said that I would prefer that sort of debate - constitutional powers, and the balance between the executive and the legislative - instead of the dead-horse-abortion hysteria that permeates all confirmation hearings. For the record, I have not come to a conclusion about wiretapping. There are far too many factors involved for me to just assign altruistic motives to the President and leave it at that.
2 - Adam neglected to tell you what his job has been since the wiretapping story broke. He has spent every waking minute at work and at home researching Presidential wiretapping - every related law, court case, and Congressional hearing transcript since the 1970s that he can get his hands on. He has also been doing a lot of reading on the difference between foreign and domestic affairs, and how the line between the two has become increasingly blurred in the last 2 decades because of technology. That comes into play as well. Also, the Chief Counsel that Adam works for on the Senate Judiciary Committee is one of the country's leading experts on the 4th Amendment - unlawful search and seizure. I've not seen them, but Adam tells me that Mike has sent out some lengthy internal memos with all kinds of interesting analysis in them.
3 - Before you assign Adam to the ultra-left anti-Bush camp, may I remind you that he works for the REPUBLICANS.
I'm just sayin' ... so you know the context we're working within at this end.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
As for my political ideology, I am a cross between a paleo-conservative (on principle) and a Jeffersonian liberal (in reality). If you want an explanation of that, email me. I am disturbed at the lack of information, excess of misinformation and lack of analysis that most Americans seem to give to politics. This is stuff that's going to affect you, so you should be paying attention to a lot of it.
Well, I use the comments thing because we have a firewall at work and Blogger doesn't like their cookies. So I can't log in and post like normal. So you know, today is Jan 17, ~8:30 am PST.
In other news, Eric updated his page last night. It's pretty cool. I realized it when I was updating the Pure Chaos site.
In other other news, today is "Customer Service Day". Good like finding a CS rep who knows that, and good luck getting them to honor this day if you kindly inform them of the fact. I think we're better off just recognizing "Rid the World of Fad Diets and Gimmicks Day". On second thought, I don't think that one's very realistic either. I also saw a note that today is "Judgement Day". No idea what was meant by that.
I said "Good like" up there. I meant "Good luck".
Yeah, sorry about that. I should have put something like that as a primary post.
Your reading of your original post is correct Trina, and I'm sorry for jumping the gun.
I haven't had a chance to research the wiretapping issue as much as I'd like, and I'm interested in reading Adam's opinions on it. You might also want to point us to a few good summaries of the issue.
In spite of my strong anti-terrorist reaction I am always troubled when there is an apparent violation of civil liberties, if only because of the precedent it may cause. I have no doubt that Bush acted as he did in order to better combat terrorism, but there is a larger picture to examine.
Oh, and Trina, I heard the Oregon euthanasia bill was upheld. Hoohah for states rights.
Whether it's euthanasia or wiretapping, the Bush Administration very well could have wonderful motivations, and the end result is something good. (No doctor assisted suicide, stop terrorism.) I don't doubt that. It's the Bush Administration's METHODS to get their results that bring up all kinds of questions of constitutional legality. I haven't read anything on the euthanasia opinion, but given the AG's track record, I'm going to guess it was something about their methodology behind the case. A 6-3 vote is a pretty stiff loss.
Well Trina, you work for a states' rights organization, and as my Ricks professor Dr. Marlor always said, where you stand depends on where you sit. I'm sure a number of administration officials were very sympathetic to the states when they were in the legislature or elsewhere, and probably still are.
This, of course, is a broad set of issues that cuts across parties. A lot of states would like their own laws to apply regarding employment law, medicinal marijuana, gay marriage, abortion, etc. And both parties (or rather ALL parties) favor state law, federal law, judicial decisions, or executive order, depending on what the issue is and how they can get their way.
Your anti-administration stand seems strongly flavored by your work for the NCSL, and Adam's by his work in the legislature. Not that there's anything wrong with that. And that's just how it seems to me. I could be wrong.
Post a Comment