Further supporting what I wrote yesterday about the district court opinion invalidating the NSA wiretapping program is this New York Times article:
Even legal experts who agreed with a federal judge’s conclusion on Thursday that a National Security Agency surveillance program is unlawful were distancing themselves from the decision’s reasoning and rhetoric yesterday.
They said the opinion overlooked important precedents, failed to engage the government’s major arguments, used circular reasoning, substituted passion for analysis and did not even offer the best reasons for its own conclusions.
Discomfort with the quality of the decision is almost universal, said Howard J. Bashman, a Pennsylvania lawyer whose Web log provides comprehensive and nonpartisan reports on legal developments.
“It does appear,� Mr. Bashman said, “that folks on all sides of the spectrum, both those who support it and those who oppose it, say the decision is not strongly grounded in legal authority.�
(Hat tip: Joe Mama.)
Meanwhile, Mickey Kaus asks:
Why is the press making such a fuss about a District Court opinion striking down the administration’s NSA eavesdropping program? It’s a District Court opinion! The actual decision will obviously be made by the Supreme Court, two levels up, and when it makes that decision the lower court’s opinion will have less weight than an editorial in Roll Call (unless the opinion’s brilliantly innovative, an exception that apparently does not apply in this case, or the judge has made a decision against his or her known tendencies–e.g. a states’ rights champion ruling for the feds–which also isn’t the case here). … The ritual in which the winning side extrapolates triumphantly from the meaningless event (”It’s another nail in the coffin of executive unilateralism”–ACLU) is a particularly disreputable bit of Kabuki.
Kaus adds that “the same point would apply if the lower court had decided in favor of the Bush administration.” Yes, it would, though somehow I think the media coverage would be a bit more muted. Just a hunch.
Last but not least, Eugene Volokh rebuts the ridiculous argument that we shouldn’t care about “the judicial quality of [the] opinion” because “the growing extremism and lawlessness to which our country has been subjected” is so much more important. This is, sadly, a pretty typical argument from the Left: that criticisms of liberals, regardless of the merits, are a waste of breath and shouldn’t be aired because what Bush is doing is so much worse. It’s a tiresome, specious point, and whoever raises it pretty much sacrifices a substantial sum of credibility in my eyes. (It would be equally tiresome coming from conservatives — “how dare you criticize Bush, even if the criticism is objectively valid, when we should all be focusing exclusively on how godless liberals are destroying this country” — but I just don’t see that happening very often.)
|
Categories: The Law & The Courts
|
August 19th, 2006 at 6:14:00 pm
Although I don’t disagree with the conventional wisdom about this decision, I will take issue with this:
This is, sadly, a pretty typical argument from the Left: that criticisms of liberals, regardless of the merits, are a waste of breath and shouldn’t be aired because what Bush is doing is so much worse. It’s a tiresome, specious point, and whoever raises it pretty much sacrifices a substantial sum of credibility in my eyes. (It would be equally tiresome coming from conservatives � “how dare you criticize Bush, even if the criticism is objectively valid, when we should all be focusing exclusively on how godless liberals are destroying this country� � but I just don’t see that happening very often.)
That perspective is your own, I guess, but it’s formed by the information and opinions of others you choose to believe. And judging by what you link to and what you’ve said in the past about liberal blogs, I’d say your perspective is pretty far from well-rounded.
I couldn’t care less what your party of choice is, but to purportedly stand in the center and scream objectivity when failing to expose yourself to the sensible arguments of the other side (i.e. Yglesias and Drum, two of the most prominent, sensible, liberal bloggers who you recently admitted to know almost nothing about) is, well, phony. And I’m not just talking about this case, which is generally irrelevant considering its outcome won’t be dictated by a District Court judge.
I dislike the rantings of the rabid liberals as much as you and as much as I dislike those on the right who choose to characterize us all as such. It’s a shame that politics has reached the point where “you’re either with us or against us.” Even more shameful is the fact that someone like you would buy into this mentality.
August 19th, 2006 at 9:46:31 pm
I dislike the rantings of the rabid liberals as much as you and as much as I dislike those on the right who choose to characterize us all as such.
Well many of us on the Right have been wondering just exactly when those of you on the Left who are not “rabid liberals” (I’ll use your term) are planning on standing up and telling the “rabid liberals” to shut up and sit down.
Until you do so, many of us on the Right are forced to conclude that your existence is every bit as much a fantasy as the “peaceful muslims” we have been looking for.
August 19th, 2006 at 11:04:59 pm
No, that attitude only comes from the MAINSTREAM right-wing media.
August 19th, 2006 at 11:16:59 pm
Brendan … you are being rational … again …
And that confuses the Sabadoo’s of the planet …
August 20th, 2006 at 12:34:13 am
gahrie, i imagine it will happen sometime when the true Republicans and Conservatives tell the neo-cons and the religious extremeists to take a hike.
Until you do, those of us not on the Right are forced to conclude that fiscal conservatives and small-government, states/individual rights Republicans are every bit as much a fantasy as the “peacful muslims” we have been looking for.
August 20th, 2006 at 12:48:50 am
David K: You’re missing the point. The Neocons and “religious extremists” (I really hate that term when applied to American politics) are not kicking people out of the party , and calling Republicans who disagree with them traitors. Compare the way Republicans have treated Sen. Chafee, who most Republicans really dislike, to the way the Democrats treated Sen. Lieberman (who was much more loyal to the Democratic leadership than Chafee has ever been to the Republican leadership)
One of the reasons I am so upset about the implosion of the Democratic Party is because the Republicans need a strong opposition to keep them honest and loyal to the principles of the party. (including small government and fiscal responsibility)
As for State’s rights…the first thing we have to do is repeal the 17th Amendment.
August 20th, 2006 at 10:11:56 am
Gahrie, I’m guessing you read only those opinions that suit your ideology. I pointed to two bloggers who spend considerable time denouncing the rabid liberals, and there are others. But you don’t choose to read or hear these voices, focusing only on those that tell you want you want to hear — namely, that the left is full of raving lunatics.
Alasdair: I never said Brendan’s being irrational. If you spent more time being honest than pithy and open-minded than snarky, perhaps you’d notice this. My only complaint is that Brendan is falling well-short of a rounded perspective on politics by basing his charcterizations of nearly half the country on how the right characterizes (and conflates to represent the whole) a small segment of the left.
Basically, your comment about me (”Sabadoo’s of the planet…” is the perfect example of your intellectual dishonesty.
August 20th, 2006 at 10:46:35 am
I pointed to two bloggers
So what? Yglesias and Drum have a fraction of the influence that Atrios and Kos do.
Besides I am more concerned about the professional Democrats like Brazille, Carville, Begala and Shrum.
Or the elected Democrats.
Like it or not, the face of the Democratic party today is Markos, Pelosi, Dean and Lamont.
August 20th, 2006 at 2:12:30 pm
Sabadoo - while the Sabadoo’s of this planet may have to choose between being honest OR pithy - open-miinded OR snarky - many of us enjoy being both at the same time quite frequently …
For example - your interesting turn of phrase - “to purportedly stand in the center and scream objectivity “ - somehow, while “pithy”, doesn’t manage to be “honest”, at least not if you “never said Brendan’s being irrational”. Screaming objectivity is not known as a rational behaviour,is it ?
Similarly, your turn of phrase - “the fact that someone like you would buy into this mentality. “ - somehow, while “pithy”, doesn’t manage to be “honest”, at least not if you “never said Brendan’s being irrational”. Since when is is rational to buy into a mentality ?
The other thing I find curious is that you find offensive the innocuous phrase “Sabadoo’s of the planet”, since you presumably *are* one - and most of us are proud to be ourselves … if someone talks about someone who confused the Alasdair’s of this planet I would address whether or not I was confused, rather than taking offence at someone daring to suggest is was like myself …
So, O Exemplar of the Sabadoo’s of This Planet, what was it you were uttering about “intellectual dishonesty” ???
In some language of ethnic origin, might sabadoo mean pot who tries to call shiny new stainless steel kettle black ?
August 20th, 2006 at 5:40:42 pm
I had been wondering why a district judge who was appointed to the bench in 1979 is still a district judge after almost three decades, and not promoted to the circuit court. One explanation is that a Democratic appointee would likely not be promoted to a federal appellate court except during a Democratic administration (in Judge Taylor’s case, that would mean an 8-year window during the Clinton administration). Reading her craptacular opinion in this case, that explanation doesn’t seem likely. The more probable explanation is that Judge Taylor simply is not a very good judge and isn’t worthy of a higher appointment, even by Democratic standards (and given Clinton’s nomination of Ruth Bader Ginsberg to SCOTUS, that’s saying something).