Those evil lefties and their whining about about the indefinite detention aspect of the NDAA (and the ridiculous, Jonah Goldberg level stupid arguments made by Shook). Wait? What? You mean they were right:
A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction late Wednesday to block provisions of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act that would allow the military to indefinitely detain anyone it accuses of knowingly or unknowingly supporting terrorism.
Signed by President Barack Obama on New Year’s Eve, the 565-page NDAA contains a short paragraph, in statute 1021, letting the military detain anyone it suspects “substantially supported” al-Qaida, the Taliban or “associated forces.” The indefinite detention would supposedly last until “the end of hostilities.”
In a 68-page ruling blocking this statute, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest agreed that the statute failed to “pass constitutional muster” because its broad language could be used to quash political dissent.
“There is a strong public interest in protecting rights guaranteed by the First Amendment,” Forrest wrote. “There is also a strong public interest in ensuring that due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment are protected by ensuring that ordinary citizens are able to understand the scope of conduct that could subject them to indefinite military detention.”
***Guardian journalist Naomi Wolf read testimony from Jonsditir, who prepared a statement saying that she would not visit the U.S. for fear of detention.
Forrest alluded to this testimony in her decision.
“Hedges, Wargalla, and Jonsdottir have changed certain associational conduct, and O’Brien and Jonsdittir have avoided certain expressive conduct, because of their concerns about § 1021. Moreover, since plaintiffs continue to have their associational and expressive conduct chilled, there is both actual and continued threatened irreparable harm,” she wrote.
“In addition, it is certainly the case that if plaintiffs were detained as a result of their conduct, they could be detained until the cessation of hostilities – i.e., an indeterminate period of time,” Forrest continued. “Being subjected to the risk of such detention, particularly in light of the Government’s inability to represent that plaintiffs’ conduct does not fall with § 1021, must constitute a threat of irreparable harm. The question then is: Is that harm immediate? Since the Government will not say that the conduct does not fall outside of §1021, one cannot predict immediacy one way or the other. The penalty we know would be severe.”
The judge added that she did not make the decision lightly.
“This court is acutely aware that preliminarily enjoining an act of Congress must be done with great caution,” she wrote. “However, it is the responsibility of our judicial system to protect the public from acts of Congress which infringe upon constitutional rights. As set forth above, this court has found that plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits regarding their constitutional claim and it therefore has a responsibility to insure that the public’s constitutional rights are protected.”
Although I caution you all to keep an open mind, because none of this changes the fact that Glenn Greenwald is longwinded and *GASP* lives in Brazil. Also too, JANE HAMSHER!
Zagloba
These people clearly have no standing to sue. Why, they can’t even show how the government would treat them!
clayton
Greenwald supports Ron Paul and raping nuns.
the end.
David Koch
Greenwald could rape a nun on tee vee and Cole would defend him.
Gin & Tonic
I see it’s in what you cut/pasted, but it’s unfortunate that Jonsdottir’s surname is misspelled so many times. Being blessed with an orthographically complex surname myself, this is a pet peeve.
clayton
Greenwald has been a libertarian from the get go. That you, a convert, still buy his bullshit is . . . disappointing.
burnspbesq
There’s a reason why we have appellate courts. I’ll be curious to read the opinion and see how the district court finessed what seem to be fairly obvious standing and ripeness problems.
Linda Featheringill
Can the court block just that one provision [indefinite detention] without striking down the whole law?
There are other problems. The military as judge, jury, and jailer? And what if remnants of Al Qaeda linger for decades? Or centuries? The military doesn’t have to defend its suspicions of a person? And what is the “knowingly or unknowingly” nonsense? Does that mean that the military is going to detain George Bush and hold him for infinity?
ETA:
I think that Obama really failed to do the right thing on this issue.
clayton
@Linda Featheringill: Linda, you are the poor down trodden token white woman on these boards.
Congress took care of this little problem early on in Obama’s presidency. What Glenn and John is yammering on about is in the hands of your Democratic congressperson.
But it makes everyone feel better to blame it on Hopey.
burnspbesq
@Linda Featheringill:
What would have been “the right thing?”
Smartypants
I find it fascinating that in a post-Bush v Gore and Citizens United world, you would base a conclusion on “because a judge said so.”
David Koch
sad news to report: the kucinich klown show is over. He announced this afternoon that he will not move to washington state and run for congress.
I’m gonna miss the little do-nothing midget and his tales of extraterrestrial encounters.
Who will bring the krazy with his departure, as remembered in this priceless video of a liberal audience laughing at dennis for his UFO tales.
now that he can no longer fly his amazonian wife around the world on the taxpayer’s dime, I imagine she’ll find someone her own age, who’s good looking.
maybe he can open an “accountability pac” commune with the rest of the online losers in brazil.
Linda Featheringill
@burnspbesq:
The right thing would have been to veto the damn thing and send it back to congress with a recommendation that they fix it.
cathyx
I love the government’s argument, they haven’t shown to be detained indefinitely yet. After an indefinite amount of time they can prove their case. Until then? No.
Stuck in the Funhouse
Well shit, wordpress ate my comment.
Heliopause
Given the history of Teruo Nakamura it’s scary that they let George Takei out of
GitmoTule Lake War Relocation Center so soon. We’re damned lucky.Keith
And tomorrow, some wingnut Congressman (or Newt) will be on FoxNews demanding that the judge’s court be defunded.
amk
baby jeebus. One injunction and that too preliminary. And cole wets himself.
Linda Featheringill
@clayton:
Maybe. But I am no poorer and no more downtrodden than I was before I spoke my mind.
Stuck in the Funhouse
can somebody fish my comment out of the spam filter, if possible?
Stuck in the Funhouse
@Linda Featheringill:
You are aware that Obama issued a signing statement concerning the detention rules in the defense bill? If not then here it is
Guster
But this is just a judge, Cole. And only preliminary. And there are three branches of gov’t, you know. Obama’s not a Senator! Show me the votes.
If you squint, this is bad news for civil liberties.
Corner Stone
But…whither the “An important read” ?
Whither the read? Whither!!
Linda Featheringill
@Stuck in the Funhouse:
The signing statement:
Yes. There is that. But what about the next president?
[did you ever get your comment free?]
burnspbesq
The court’s standing analysis seems to me to be a bit of a stretch.
It’s based on an expansive reading of the Second Circuit’s opinion in Amnesty International v. Clapper, and ClapperItself (which involves a challenge to Section 702 of FISA) is something of an outlier.
The government has petitioned for cert in Clapper, claiming it conflicts with decisions of other circuits p, and there seems to bea consensus that the Supremes are likely to take the case. If Clapper goes away, so does this case.
Corner Stone
Did you realize it would have meant a veto of “the entire bill”?
Betcha didn’t.
burnspbesq
@Linda Featheringill:
I assume you noticed that the NDAA passed both houses of Congress with veto-proof majorities. A veto would have been a meaningless gesture. The signing statement is not.
polyorchnid octopunch
@burnspbesq: I’m sure Roberts is going to get right on that.
Stuck in the Funhouse
@Linda Featheringill:
no, my comment is still being detained. Short of vetoing the defense bill, that Obama first threatened to do, if this detention provision remained in it, was modified some by some dems, and Obama signed the bill with the signing statement that he would not use the provision contrary to other US law. The final bill was a mish mash of compromises, that no one could really understand what the language meant. You can blame Obama for not vetoing the defense bill, but not that he sought this provision, nor that he wanted it in the final bill.
The judge did her job well, and senators and congress people should be ashamed putting this obvious unconstitutional bill on Obama’s desk attached to funding for the troops.
Frankensteinbeck
John, I have bad news for you. The people who don’t like Greenwald also didn’t like this law. There is no conflict in those positions whatsoever. A libertarian who bitches about everything the government does and describes it as evil will INEVITABLY bitch about some actually evil things.
Meanwhile, I’m glad a court is stepping in against this unpleasant law. I hope this section will actually be removed. My understanding from when it was being debated is that it’s not AS bad as it sounds, but it’s plenty bad enough. I do not know why, but even the Democrats in Congress are all-in that everything Bush did involving terror detainees will stay done. This was another reminder to Obama that they won’t let him free anyone, won’t let anything be investigated, and these poor prisoners are going to stay where they are forever.
Zagloba
@Stuck in the Funhouse: let’s pretend for a moment that I’m not afraid of Obama using these powers in a tyrannical way. Obama should have issued a veto threat early and carried it out when the bill was passed with the offending section included, on the off chance that President Palin or whoever the Tea Party gets elected president in 2016 doesn’t have Obama’s admirable restraint.
eemom
I’ll comment just as soon as I stop reeling from the devastating force of that preemptive strike.
Srsly Cole. You’re as creative as a coloring book.
El Cid
This was interesting.
She also didn’t see it as just part of the AUMF of 2001.
Stuck in the Funhouse
@burnspbesq:
Veto proof majority? I thought it was a filibuster proof majority, something like 60 to 38, but can’t find that now. gotta link?
Stuck in the Funhouse
@Zagloba:
He did issue a veto threat, and the original bill was amended. I won’t argue that Obama should have vetoed it, but only that he clearly did not want it. It is a serious matter vetoing a defense appropriations bill, but your point on future presidents is sound. Though I don’t know when republicans of recent history cared much for what is legal and what is not. Pretty much doing what they want, and claiming they are protecting us.
burnspbesq
@polyorchnid octopunch:
That is a real possibility. According to SCOTUSBlog, Clapper is on the agenda for tomorrow’s conference. And this post from Orin Kerr illustrates that regardless of whether you think it was right or wrong, Clapper was a pretty major departure.
http://volokh.com/2011/03/24/amnesty-international-usa-v-clapper-and-standing-to-challenge-secret-surveillance-regimes/
Steve
@burnspbesq: It is not a stretch for a SDNY judge to follow a decision by the Second Circuit. It’s actually in the job description.
eemom
@burnspbesq:
Sure, so that when this gets reversed by one Cole can rant about how the entire federal judiciary is all one big ol’ Koch puppet.
And when the Supreme Court gets it…..what do you suppose Cole will say then? OMG the suspense is killing me.
Linda Featheringill
A signing statement may have been the most practical thing at the time. Maybe.
I am an Obot, you know, but I’m sitting in judgement against him on this one. I think he dropped the ball, at least.
Do you think that the govt would let the military run out of money? Empty threat.
Linda Featheringill
Actually, a court decision that the offending portion is unconstitutional would work, too. That would be all right.
burnspbesq
@Stuck in the Funhouse:
60-38 was the vote on Udall’s proposed amendment. The vote on the conference report was 86-13 in the Senate, and 283-136 in the House.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr1540
Stuck in the Funhouse
@Linda Featheringill:
I have no argument with that, just so long as it is accurate what happened, and Obama’s role in it.
Stuck in the Funhouse
@burnspbesq:
Thanks. Well that settles that, Obama couldn’t have vetoed the final bill. The signing statement was the only path available.
burnspbesq
@Steve:
It would have been trivially easy for the court to distinguish Clapper if it had wanted to.
Stuck in the Funhouse
That lady judge has some big stones, enjoining a part of the national defense bill.
eemom
@Linda Featheringill:
Who is “the gov’t”?
Also, what part of “veto proof majority” do you not understand?
Your argument boils down to “Obama should have done SOMETHING to stop this…..I dunno what, but SOMETHING.” That is not an argument, it’s just “bully pulpit” redux.
burnspbesq
If you’re interested, there is a link to the opinion on the front page of the SDNY website.
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/
Zagloba
@Stuck in the Funhouse: I fail to see why that settles the question of whether he should have vetoed it, just the question of whether vetoing the bill would have stopped it.
Hsquared
For proof that judges never get it wrong, refer to the Citizens United ruling.
Stuck in the Funhouse
@Zagloba:
see above comment from burns@burnspbesq:
twas veto proof vote
burnspbesq
@Stuck in the Funhouse:
I’d say “big stones and a bullshit detector in need of re-calibration,” but YMMV. I’m also open to argument that DOJ fucked up in its handling of the hearing.
Stuck in the Funhouse
@burnspbesq:
The language was murky, even after amendments. I support what she did
amk
@eemom: The fucking corrupt congress collectively pushes the country in a downward spiral while Obama singly tries to push back against it. Yeah, it’s all Obama’s fault somehow.
SteveinSC
Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha! SteveinSC, right on Bush and Iraq, right on Obama and indefinite detention you fucking exquisite prigs, Burnspbesq, et. al., assholes one and all. Jesus this was so easy. Flamers.
Frankensteinbeck
@Stuck in the Funhouse:
Like I said, congress REALLY wants those prisoners to stay locked up, so much so that they used this bill to remind Obama they will retroactively make everything Bush did legal if necessary, and will laugh at his veto.
I really do not understand this. There is NOTHING, hugely important or utterly trivial, that both sides in congress agree on with this strength. Even if you think they’re under the military-industrial complex’s thumb, they ain’t workin’ this hard to protect the DoD from Obama’s proposed cuts. For some reason I do not understand, congress is fanatically dedicated to keeping Bush’s trampling on international law from being fixed.
Corner Stone
@Zagloba:
Apparently, once a vote has happened then either the same exact votes happen again after veto, or to some people’s minds, people who didn’t even vote the first time around are guaranteed to vote against the President again to override the veto.
Just a really weak argument.
Zagloba
@Stuck in the Funhouse: yes. So vetoing would not stop the bill, as I said.
Now explain why making a huge deal about vetoing the bill, sending it back to Congress with a detailed brief on the illegal and unhelpful character of section 1021, and telling the American people to call their congressperson and demand that provision be cut out… You know, exercising leadership of the party and the nation? Why’s that a bad idea again?
Corner Stone
@Frankensteinbeck:
This is classic. Just fucking classic my man.
Frankensteinbeck
@Corner Stone:
…you seriously think Obama vetoing this would have removed the language. Seriously. After their voting with giant veto-proof majorities to block every attempt to close Guantanamo so far, you think a veto would have done anything but piss off Democratic Senators Obama can’t afford to piss off.
burnspbesq
@Stuck in the Funhouse:
Just so we’re clear, I think Section 1021 is a horrible thing, but I don’t think these plaintiffs should have standing. Even if I thought Clapper was correctly decided (I haven’t made up my mind on that yet), I would still say that giving these plaintiffs standing is the wrong answer.
Keith G
@Linda Featheringill:
Maybe he was just leading from behind.
Obama likes being a cautious facilitator and he seems to relish the collectivization of decision making. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. I was counting on him to rigorously push back against the Bush era changes in civil liberties. He has pushed back in some cases, but none too vigorously.
Zagloba
Can’t speak for CS, but no, I don’t think that Obama’s veto would have gotten the language removed. I also don’t think that Obama wants the language removed; he’s been a disgrace on civil liberties.
Doesn’t change that he was in a unique position to have called for the section’s removal and had multiple tools at his disposal to raise the heat on the issue, had he wanted to.
Stuck in the Funhouse
@Zagloba:
I wonder if I am following what you are saying. Your first comment was complaining why Obama did not veto the bill as he said he would, until learning the vote was veto proof and a presidential veto moot. Now you want him to exactly do what?
A signing statement was the only available route to go, short of self immolation on the WH lawn in protest. He can’t do congresses job and his too, and the suggestion he should is ludicrous. imho.
Corner Stone
@Frankensteinbeck: We’ll never know will we? But piss off what D Senators? They ain’t passing shit anyway in the run up to elections and there’s every chance the R’s will take the Senate.
Zagloba
Only route to achieve what?
My fantasy Obama is not the Obama who exists in the real world, we know this. The real Obama likes having the ability to indefinitely detain people, and I would not expect him to have done anything differently.
My fantasy Obama, on the other hand, would have achieved the exact same law being enacted (assuming that Congress revotes exactly as before) while scoring a huge rhetorical point by saying loudly and repeatedly that he will not have this provision on top of his signature.
The prophet Nostradumbass
@burnspbesq: Who would actually have standing for such a challenge?
Stuck in the Funhouse
Lemme git this straight. Our firebagger personnel are claiming even though Obama issued a formal veto threat, the fact of the veto proof majority lends us to be suspicious whether he would have carried out that veto threat with the offending language on detentions. I know, just legitimate criticism thwarted by the obots.
Keith G
@Zagloba: Because doing that would have a high possibility that Obama would be on the losing end of a veto fight; and righteous or not, Obama has heretofore been unwilling to take that hit.
Some feel he should fight and that this would be a teachable moment no matter the legislative outcome. Others act as if they feel that the president is a porcelain doll who might be broken by a rough veto fight, even if the cause is just.
We have already been shown that Obama’s closest advisers tend to be defensive and very cautious. The outcomes here are becoming a bit predictable.
Ken
letting the military detain anyone it suspects “substantially supported” al-Qaida, the Taliban or “associated forces.”
Was there a time limit on that? Because the entire Reagan administration was buddy-buddy with the Taliban when they were fighting the Soviets in the 1980s. Even Rambo was on their side.
Stuck in the Funhouse
@Zagloba:
Oh, I see. form over substance. A signing statement was a formal act of defiance and disagreement with the congress on their bill. And if he hadn’t signed it, it still would become the law of the land, and did with the final votes in congress, with a declarative official record with a signing statement, that he would not enforce it. With a signing statement not possible with refusal to sign the damn thing. So he should have not signed it, and do what? Get away from me with the clown shit.
amk
@Stuck in the Funhouse: Teh internetz is full of he coulda/shoulda experts on presidential powers.
Zagloba
@Stuck in the Funhouse: No firebagging here. Obama issued a veto threat; if I recall correctly the law was amended to its current form in response to that threat; the current form is still bad and Obama said as much in his signing statement.
Now, you seem to be saying “if the law has veto-override support in Congress, then Obama should just sign the bill”. I’m disputing that claim, and you seem to be missing my reasoning.
burnspbesq
@The prophet Nostradumbass:
Who’s got an actual injury-in-fact? At this point in time, I would say “nobody,” in part because I find plaintiffs’ testimony at the hearing on the preliminary injunction far-fetched.
I’m not unsympathetic to the argument that “substantially supported” is too vague for people to conform their conduct to the requirements of the statute, but you have the same problem with the statute that makes “material support” for terrorists a crime, and the courts have been slowly sorting that one out.
Anybody who actually gets bagged under circumstances that bring Section 1021 into play can argue vagueness as a defense, and maybe that’s enough.
Remember, standing is part of the “case or controversy” requirement, and the case or controversy requirement exists so that courts don’t have to (or, alternatively, don’t get to) decide serious issues based on hypothetical facts.
ETA: Having thought about it some more, I think this case is distinguishable from Clapper. Clapper involved secret, warrantless wiretapping. If the program worked as it was designed to work, nobody would ever know whether they had standing under traditional concepts of injury-in-fact. In the case of Section 1021, you’ll know whether you have standing the second you get bagged by some spec-ops guy.
Stuck in the Funhouse
@Frankensteinbeck:
US congress on national security. Passel of chickenshits from both sides of the isle,
burnspbesq
@Stuck in the Funhouse:
Chickenshit’s lawyers would like a word with you. Something about libeling their client by comparing it to Congress.
Zagloba
I haven’t read the decision, but the excerpts and summary suggest that this is discussed in the ruling.
It’s a combination of that the plaintiffs allege chilling effect on their own association, reporting, and travel; and that the govt was given the opportunity to respond that plaintiffs’ activities did not fall under the wording of the law, and declined to do so.
ETA: just saw “chickenshit’s lawyers”, and am quite amused.
Corner Stone
@burnspbesq:
Well. I guess we’ve all got that to look forward to.
burnspbesq
@Zagloba:
Yeah, you either find that testimony credible or you don’t. I wasn’t at the hearing, didn’t get to observe the witnesses’ demeanor, etc. but on paper, it doesn’t convince me.
Steve
@burnspbesq: Of course they have an injury in fact. It doesn’t matter that you find it trivial, implausible, or whatever. You can raise an Establishment Clause challenge just by alleging that you have to take the long way to work to avoid seeing that offensive religious symbol.
The key question in these cases is whether there’s a clear enough link between the injury-in-fact and the government’s conduct. You can say that their fear is irrational and so if they’ve chosen to alter their behavior it’s their fault and not the government’s. But disputing the existence of the injury is a tougher slog.
Corner Stone
Sometimes I wish I hadn’t gone balls out to not only defend the signing of this bill, but aggressively attacked people who had substantial issues with it. Bygones, I guess.
Oh wait. That wasn’t me.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@eemom:
You do mean the color by numbers one, right? No shit Cole, you can do better than this.
FlipYrWhig
I thought the fight over this was not good idea vs. bad idea but “Obama did this because the Congress dropped it in his lap” vs. “Obama did this because he’s licking his chops to take out the few brave dissidents to his authoritarian regime.”
boss bitch
So what am I seeing in this thread? The folks who have repeatedly advised Obama to give up negotiating with Republicans are also saying that he should have negotiated more with Republicans? Because Republicans would never let the country burn to the ground?
Zagloba
@boss bitch: Um… care to cite who’s supposed to be saying that?
FlipYrWhig
@boss bitch: The idea is to veto it, make a big stink about why, dare the Congress to override it, then, if they do, accept it with a show of reluctance or discomfort.
Corner Stone
@boss bitch: This might be the most dense reading of this issue I’ve seen. Not surprising in any way.
Zagloba
One other point: I can’t find it at the moment, but one of the people above, Stuck maybe, mentioned that the signing statement is Obama’s opportunity to add his disapproval to the record.
This is exactly backwards, because a signing statement has no legal power. The statement of objections accompanying a veto, on the other hand, is expressly enumerated in the Constitution as a responsibility of the President.
eemom
@Corner Stone:
oh, go fuck yourself, you smug, useless asshole.
You contribute nothing to the discussion here, ever — unless you count the sickly amusing spectacle of an individual who evinces nothing but contempt for his fellow humans cloaking himself in the guise of a champion of human rights.
FlipYrWhig
@Zagloba: As I recall, I had said back then that I would prefer the veto-with-stink plan, although I honestly don’t remember. (I then spent more time trying to sketch out whether a president who embraced executive power was doing so neessarily because he believed in it on principle, or if embracing it had to do with inter-branch separation-of-powers debates.) The upside of the veto is the “teachable moment” aspect invoked earlier. The downside, of course, is a wave of press coverage about how weakling Obama was sticking out his neck for terrorists and was slapped down by respected members of both parties.
Stuck in the Funhouse
@boss bitch:
I think someone may have dumped some loco weed in the blog water supply. I had liberals telling me down below that there is no such thing as ‘white privilege’ that everything is class, and even if there was ‘white privilege’ it’s best to not tell those who are acting stupidly because of it, for fear of them getting mad and not voting democrat, which they likely haven’t done since LBJ.
Now we have folks claiming Obama should have vetoed a veto proof bill that cannot be vetoed, or something like that.
I’m going to bed now, good nite and good luck
Mnemosyne
@Zagloba:
I’m not sure what you mean by “legal power.” A signing statement is a practical action, not a legal maneuver. It’s basically a statement from the executive branch stating what action they will (or will not) take regarding the law that was just signed. As far as I know, Congress has no way of forcing the executive branch to take an action that the EB refuses to take.
Zagloba
Can’t say I recall either, but then again I have a memory like a steel sieve. Of course, to me all this is about what my fantasy-Obama would do, as I mentioned before.
You raise an interesting point there… I think it was Delong who, a few weeks ago, was castigating Larry Summers for pre-emptively not doing something for fear of a challenge of some sort; Delong’s response was that it is not the Executive’s job to check and balance itself.
But “not indefinitely detaining people” isn’t exactly a matter of checks and balances; not to mention the enthusiasm all three branches have shown for that kind of thing over the last few years.
FlipYrWhig
@Zagloba: Yeah, I think in my mind it’s more like, if Congress wants the executive to have power over something, it’s a hard play for the executive to say, “no thank you, we couldn’t possibly.” In this case IIRC the Obama folks made an argument about how the executive already had powers in this area stemming from Commander-in-Chief authority and statutes like the authorization for use of military force in Afghanistan. Bush made some broad and unanticipated claims about executive power, and Obama has used those, to be sure. But in my view that’s because executives, all executives, want leeway to do things their way and don’t want to be inconvenienced by the checks and balances of the legislature, because from their selfish standpoint that’s how to get shit done. Whereas the civil libertarian critique of Obama on these issues tends to say that Obama, being Obama, is drunk on power and enjoys running roughshod over civil liberties.
Or, to put it another way, I think constitutional law professor Obama would argue against executives having expansive powers, and Senator Obama would. But President Obama, being this president at this time, wants to claim the most power possible because it keeps decisions in his hands rather than throwing them back to a legislature that in actual fact is full of morons and cowards.
FlipYrWhig
@FlipYrWhig: Which is why I think it’s valid to say that it’s a bullshit provision in the law, one that validates an expansive view of executive power — but I don’t think it’s some kind of Obama Doctrine. It’s a case of presidents being presidents and daring the other branches to stop them.
Marcellus Shale, Public Dick
ummm i dunno, with lobbyists writting the bills, and congress fundraising them through the procedurals, and the president handed an ultimatum either in practical or “just political” terms, maybe the judicial branch actually does have to be a little activist.
i mean no one is pretending scrotus is above sausage making, are they?
every part of every law gets run through the judicial strainer, so what is wrong with merely expecting it to happen? relying on the courts to do what they are supposed to do?
why pretend its your job to give the court nothing to do?
Dr. Squid
Where Greenwald was wrong was in his blaming the President for the entire thing – that all blame should be on his shoulders and his alone. That government doesn’t work that way doesn’t matter – only that he gets his potshots in.
Where was Hamsher wrong? She’s a brainless chumbolone who doesn’t deserve the time of day.
FlipYrWhig
I thought of an analogy. Let’s say you work at a company, and you’re a department head, and you’re hiring. Customary practice is that hiring decisions have to take place in consultation with Human Resources. But one day you’re told that this time around it’s OK to skip HR. You’d probably _love_ that because it would remove a layer of coordination and delay. You probably wouldn’t say, “Well, no, I think it’s very important to let HR do its thing.” And if someone pointed out that HR is in charge of monitoring compliance with equal opportunity and other fair hiring practices, your eagerness to skip them wouldn’t (absent other proof) suggest that you were committed to discrimination.
NR
@burnspbesq:
283<290, so not veto-proof.
Keith G
@FlipYrWhig: An excellent point. I wish more were around to read it.
Cacti
@clayton:
Fix’d.
El Cid
@burnspbesq:
Do we know what guidelines bring 1021 into play?
And what procedures are available to those so detained to present a defense? Do we know?
El Cid
It’s odd, but I actually find this issue of importance even beyond discussions of Obama’s particular role (especially regarding veto / non-veto) and what I feel about Greenwald.
I know, I know, it’s probably silly to think that the subject might go further afield than those two subjects, or that there might be people doing a variety of things to highlight the issue or raise objections whatever the current exact political context, but then, I’m odd like that.
Water balloon
Ironically, this is one of the big reasons I support Obama. Whoever gets elected will try to increase executive power and erode civil liberties, so the only realistic way to curtail that is lots more liberal judges getting appointed. Obama will do that, Romney will do the opposite.
some guy
@NR: 283/419 = 67.5%. You’ve confused the total membership of the House with how many people actually voted on the bill.
@Water balloon: You probably haven’t been following Obama’s record on filling judicial vacancies, then. It isn’t going well at all.