I agree with you, Steve.
Unlike the Bush loving trolls, we question and complain when we think something is just plain wrong.
Posted by TIKI AL at February 26, 2009 12:56 AMAh, I'm touched, Tiki. Last summer, after securing the nomination and knowing he would be the next president of the US, he voted for FISA with the telecom immunity. The many here cast their responsible vote for the guy afterwords. Now, you want to stake a claim that you're not walking lockstep with him. Nope, you voted for the guy with foreknowledge.
What did Sen. Byrd say yesterday? What was his warning? This president will make Bush's power grab seem tame. And Democrats are giving him anything he wants. Has Obama provided anything from his campaign to the Democratic Party? Nope again. He built the mechanism that got him elected. He controls that mechanism and will use it as he sees fit. If you get in his way, beware.
***
Have y'all looked at the 10 Amendment? Seems eleven states have and are looking not to accept all this "stimulus" money because of it. Several Democratic governors and statehouses included, not just Tennessee.
***
And former President Bush has nothing to worry about from this administration. Nothing will be allowed to weaken the institution he's established.
All right, I'll be placed into the Obama Koolaid Brigade for this, but I don't see much room for criticism of this brief.
The crappy immunity law was duly passed by Congress and DOJ are supposed to defend its legality. I don't know the area, but I have a feeling the precedents are fairly strong that our lamebrain Congress had the constitutional POWER to pass the immunity provision. I know the private litigants are claiming otherwise. For the DOJ to agree, in a brief, the precedents would have to be crystal clear, and they probably aren't.
So this isn't the height of "I wants my Bushco executive power, thanks" IMO. Without knowing the cases and precedents, its very hard to say this was a Bush-lite decision.
Now on the Obama decision last week to continue the outrageous Bushco claim of executive "state secrets" to shield the gruesome torturing actions of the CIA from judicial scrutiny in another case, that's another matter---and Obama/Holder failed the country miserably on that one. Spectacular fail, and a very bad sign of co-option by the CIA blackmailers.
We'll have to keep watching how this develops case by case---it's not looking great so far. Obama could easily destroy his lustre among that block of progressives for whom telecom immunity was a big deal. Then what?
After the passage of the immunity provision, I gave up on the current Dem Congressional leadership and stopped my small funding of them. I no longer take what Pelosi or Reid say seriously, certainly not in this area. I'm confident that we won't "do the right thing" here. Just more charades of outrage, with meaningless kabuki entertainment. No real accountability.
There's your hope.
Posted by euzoius at February 26, 2009 05:51 AM"The crappy immunity law was duly passed by Congress"
And guess who was in that congress that passed that crappy immunity law? Senator Barry O.
Guess who voted FOR that crappy law? Senator Barry O?
Remember who said "he is just doing what he has to do to get elected then he will revisit that crappy law"? Left wing trolls.
Posted by manapp99 at February 26, 2009 09:05 AMI find it peculiar that people complain about the imperial presidency, and then complain more when the Imperial President does not rule by fiat in the preferred "progressive" fashion.
Telecom immunity could be revoked if Congress passes a law to do that. (Remember what "Congress" is?) Obama could choose to veto the bill, obviously.
Posted by joel dan walls at February 26, 2009 10:08 AM