Subscribe via RSS Feed

That’s Some Catch

[ 13 ] October 30, 2012 |

The Obama administration is continuing to argue that the potential legal defects of the warrantless wiretapping regime established by Congress should insulate the program from meaningful legal review. I continue to find this…unconvincing.

Jeff Rosen is also good on this.

Share with Sociable

Comments (13)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. herr doktor bimler says:

    What were the previous 21 catches?

  2. jeer9 says:

    We can only hope Obama is re-elected so that he can appoint a liberal-minded justice who will overturn his unchallengeable surveillance policy. Now that’s some irony I can get behind.

    • Holden Pattern says:

      Romney would be worse, etc. etc. If you criticize Obama at this stage of the campaign, you’re objectively pro-Romney, etc. etc.

      If you want change you need to start at the grassroots in the face of the established money and power just like the movement conservatives did but without any of their funding sources, etc. etc. If you don’t, your criticisms cannot be taken seriously and you’re just preening etc. etc.

      • McAllen says:

        If you criticize Obama at this stage of the campaign, you’re objectively pro-Romney

        This is sort of an inane strawman to make in a post criticizing Obama, no?

        • Scott Lemieux says:

          This is sort of an inane strawman to make in a post criticizing Obama

          Yes. Yes it is.

          The important thing to remember is that despite all appearances Holden Pattern isn’t actually pro- third party spoiler campaigns. He’s just anti- any criticism whatsoever of irrational tactics, and strongly in favor conflating criticism of irrational tactics with opposing any criticism of Obama. He will continue to strongly oppose the idea that people shouldn’t criticize Obama, and one of these days he may even find someone to argue against.

      • NonyNony says:

        If you criticize Obama at this stage of the campaign, you’re objectively pro-Romney

        Ah a critique of the website that appears in a post – that is critical of Obama! And unashamedly so.

        To quote someone upthread – that’s some irony I can get behind!

        (You know it IS quite possible to criticize the President from the left without becoming Matt Stoller-level stupid in your reasoning.)

    • Scott Lemieux says:

      liberal-minded justice who will overturn his unchallengeable surveillance policy

      You do know that Democratic nominees pretty much never favor these artificially tight standing rules, right? Oh wait — of course you don’t. Because you don’t care about the 4th Amendment; you care about throwing elections to Republicans.

      • jeer9 says:

        Your criticism of Obama is always appreciated. Sorry that my extension of the Catch 22 theme brought out the inner reactionary. It’s almost as if such commentary had no standing with you. If only I could care about such legal niceties as much as a Con Law prof.

      • bradP says:

        You do know that Democratic nominees pretty much never favor these artificially tight standing rules, right? Oh wait — of course you don’t. Because you don’t care about the 4th Amendment; you care about throwing elections to Republicans.

        Is it the case that Obama would nominate a justice that would disagree with the administration’s legal arguments, or can we use the administration’s legal arguments as a preview of what we should expect of his nominees?

        On a similar note, I would expect Sotomayor to reject this. Will Kagan?

  3. Scott Lemieux, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

    You’ve so thoroughly and brutally denied Holden Pattern’s ability to complain about Barack Obama that he couldn’t even write a comment complaining about the administration’s actions, and was forced to console himself with a comment about being oppressed.

    How do you sleep at night?

  4. parrot says:

    i’m certain that the SCOTUS is never surveilled … of course, that would be mere speculation alice in wonderland indeed … would the SCOTUS have to argue their case before themselves to have legal standing? … thanks scott for the links …

  5. Joe says:

    This sort of thing pisses me off … they have a longshot winning, but let them at least have a shot at making the case. Not as bad as the Arar situation, but give me a break. And, it adds (phony) ammo to the “no better than Bush [w/o qualifier]” brigade. Which is almost as bad as the privacy / chickenshit not having a real day in court problems.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.