17 Responses to “Republicans Already Talking Revolt?”

1. Simon Dodd Says:
   April 1st, 2009 at 11:04 am

   “Obviously illegal policies”? “Obviously illegal” isn’t a synonym for “policies I don’t like,” Justin. Care to name a few examples and make a credible case for their illegality, let alone their obvious illegality? It’s a touch ironic that in criticizing (rightly) the sotto voce hystericism of some on the right, you would reprise the greatest hits of the hysterical incoherence of the opposition to the last President.

2. SD3 Says:
   April 1st, 2009 at 11:24 am

   We’re less than three months into this new presidency and we’re already hearing people on the right wing talking about how people could start rioting.

   Because the left wing wasn’t having an absolute conniption even before Bush was inaugurated.

3. Justin Gardner Says:
   April 1st, 2009 at 11:42 am

   Okay Simon, here’s a sample…

   - Illegal wiretapping
   - Illegal monitoring of computer activity
   - Policies that promoted torture
   - Holding people indefinitely without access to counsel
   - Approving the outing of an active CIA agent

   And you and I know there are more.

   But hey, it’s all in the name of nebulous national security, so it’s alright. Anything can be justified in that case, yeah?

   Save it.

   SD3, yes, people were angry about the election, but then it came to policies (like his massive tax cuts), the fervor died down. There’s a big difference here.

   However, I’m sure you didn’t see this in another thread, but you’ve been banned from the site for your previous comments. I warned you multiple times and you never listened. Please leave.

4. kranky kritter Says:
   April 1st, 2009 at 12:49 pm

   I can’t support violent revolt, but pointed nonviolent protest might be a good start when it comes to certain things.

   I think the dishwasher detergent is a good example. Regular folks have every right, IMO, to be extremely upset by fairly sudden and blithely implemented policies that don’t seem to have been undertaken with broad public support.

   Philosophically -speaking, I am right there with folks pissed off at things like tripling of tobacco taxes, talk of big gas tax increases, junk-food taxes, bans of dishwasher detergents, outlawing things like cigar bars, and so on.

   There is a definite pattern at work here, and it has come about quickly and agressively on the part of progressives in power. There is no question in my mind that as it continues, there will be a substantial backlash. This blowback is something that progressives will be extremely eager to dismiss and explain away, largely by marginalizing opponents as fringe zealots.

   Progressives who choose this response route will unknowingly be proving to sensible regular moderate folks that they do not deserve the power they have been handed and that they really don’t GET what makes regular folks tick.

5. Simon Dodd Says:
   April 1st, 2009 at 1:21 pm

   The first two are not “obviously” illegal; the people who say that they were – the Glen Greenwalds of the world – had already decided that they were illegal before they even knew the programs existed. The programs may arguably be illegal – but that is another matter. The torture issue I don’t know enough about to speak to. I’d like to hear your argument that holding de facto prisoners of war without access to counsel is illegal, let alone obviously so; most people who make that claim cite the Sixth Amendment, which seems plainly inapplicable (it requires only that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence” (emphasis added)). Lastly, regardless of who in fact did what to whom with whose authorization during the Plame affair, legally vel non, it doesn’t help you because it isn’t an example of a policy.

6. J. Harden Says:
   April 1st, 2009 at 1:36 pm

   By all means Justin, if the illegality of the Bush Administration is so obvious then there is a duty to prosecute. The Obama Administration has a moral and legal duty to appoint a special prosecutor to go after the Bush Administration for obviously illegal activities which it knows about. Otherwise, the Obama Administration is acting as an Accessory-After-The-Fact to those criminal activities. Otherwise this Administration can claim absolutely ZERO legal (or moral) high-ground to the Bush Administration. Sometimes it is helpful to veer your eyes off of the Obama talking points. With the obviousness of the crimes, I will expect a special prosecutor to be appointed at any time.

7. kranky kritter Says:
   April 1st, 2009 at 2:04 pm

   Simon, this is a well established form of rhetoric: proof by declaration. LOL.

   I find that notions such as defensibility and debatability are largely ignored by too many folks. It is certainly disappointing how often folks explore issues at length without arriving at a place where they can acknowledge good points made by both sides. For my part I often find myself saying something is defensible when for example I want to say something like “I think policy x is not the best choice, but it’s a defensible approach.”

   I’d like to see more folks consider this dialogical device. The blog alternative is to endlessly pick at the scabs of unpleasant and previously unsettled debates.

   But then hey, some folks really do want another argument about, say, why the other side is way worse. I have seen such battles achieve nothing far too many times to have missed the fact that such debates amount to no more than partisan masturbation.

8. Justin Gardner Says:
   April 1st, 2009 at 2:13 pm

   @simon,

   First, wiretapping without warrants is illegal. There’s no way around that. It’s law. They could have even went back and received retroactive warrants that were sealed, but they didn’t.

   Second, of course torture is illegal. And of course we tortured.

   Third, how many times do I have to say it, you can’t declare war on a tactic. Because doing so means you’re in a constant state of war. That’s madness, and both you and I know that. So why you continue to justify a policy that would allow us to take anybody at any time and detain them indefinitely is beyond me. But do know that decision crippled our credibility the past 6 years and led to islamic extremism growing, not subsiding.

   @J. Harden –

   Your equivocation is pretty transparent. I know you’re a lawyer and I know you know as well as I that normal people aren’t prosecuted every single day for a multitude of reasons. You also know that it’s politically unrealistic to appoint any type of special prosecutor right now, especially since there are so many other things to sort through. And accessory-after-the-fact? Good lord…

   Also, I was saying this before Obama was even on the political radar as a candidate. So please, save the “talking points” tactic.

9. TerenceC Says:
   April 1st, 2009 at 3:34 pm

   It’s only been 2 1/2 months – revolt against what? The righties are unhappy because they have absolutely no political relevance at this time – and the majority of Americans (53%) want it that way. To defend Bush in any way (except for the AIDS policy in Africa) is unconscionable. George Bush declared himself exempt from over 700 laws, he hated the Bill of Rights, and started 2 wars – arguably one of them justifiable. Bush implemented 1100 signing statements (twice as many as all other presidents combined). A signing statement essentially means that Congress can pass a law – but the president unsurps their legislative power by not having to uphold those laws – essentially exempting himself from doing his job. So when I hear someone defend Bush all I can say is SHUT UP! You have no idea what you are talking about. Revolt all you want, but when you’re jailed and your property is seized under the Patriot act don’t blame Obama – blame Bush and his signing statements.

10. J. Harden Says:
    April 1st, 2009 at 4:01 pm

    First off, “a transparent equivocation” is something of an oxymoron isn’t it?

    “Politically unrealistic” — that must be code for political cowardice or a straight out lack of conviction. The statute of limitations is runny JG. The Obama Administration only has 5 years from the date of the obvious crime. One doesn’t get to suck their thumb in perpetuity waiting to grow a pair and act on their convictions only when politically convenient — we’d all still be living in segregation if that were the reality. For godsake, you don’t believe these people who were held without trial, without counsel and were Tortured desire justice? There is a time for political convenience and then there is a time for leadership. Are we ever going to be graced with the latter from this Administration?

    And yes, while there is certainly such a thing as prosecutorial discretion, that discretion is usually utilized when a crime is LESS than “obvious” – particularly with egregious crimes against humanity such a torture and wholesale abrogation of constitutional rights. Alternatively, it used in cases where the general equities of the situation fall in favor of the alleged criminal, i.e. a wife shooting a physically abusive husband.

    Of course, there is this ever-so slight chance that the left is merely interested in asserting these “obvious crimes” for nothing more than crass political purposes, but I seriously doubt that because we now have a new type of politics, one that transcends these gutteral tactics and is truly interested in bringing the country together.

11. Simon Dodd Says:
    April 1st, 2009 at 4:03 pm

    Justin, it would help your position to refer to what law is supposedly violated, rather than referring to “law” and “illegality” in the abstract. You claim that “wiretapping without warrants is illegal” – per se, we are to infer. What’s your authority for that? 18 U.S.C. § 2511 pretty much takes itself out of the game on its own terms, and I don’t know any case, not even Katz itself, that sweeps so broadly in its holding in terms of Fourth Amendment law. Warrantless searches aren’t generally per se illegal, and they have only been found (so far as I know) to be all but per se illegal in very particular contexts where the expectation of privacy is at its zenith, see, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), so what’s the basis for what increasingly looks like an unexamined assumption on your part that in the particular context of wiretaps, the lack of a warrant must be fatal?

    Similarly, you state categorically that torture is illegal, and that we did it. You don’t tell us what law that violates (surely the predicate of something being illegal). The United States certainly has an indictable crime called “torture,” see 18 U.S.C. § 2340A, but the term is defined specifically (see sections 1340(1) and (2)). Is it applicable? I don’t know. If it is, did we “of course” violate it? I don’t know. If we did violate it, did we systematically violate it (implicit of your framing the debate in terms of policy)? I don’t know. At best, the facts are murky, and as any attorney worth their salt will tell you, a vague theory that something bad went on won’t get you very far. (If it ever would have, it won’t even get you into court after Bell Atlantic.) Ascertaining the application of law to uncertain facts is a minefield.

    Your third point, whatever its merits, is entirely non-responsive. You complained that “[h]olding people indefinitely without access to counsel” is illegal; as I noted, the only source of authority I’ve ever seen identified for that proposition is the Sixth Amendment, which doesn’t seem to apply. Your burden is to explain why (or identify authority to the effect that) the Sixth Amendment does apply, or identify an alternative and applicable source of law that makes it illegal. That burden isn’t carried by interesting but ultimately irrelevant ruminations on the nature of war, whether one can wage it against a tactic, and how silly the Bush administration was to try. That’s a verbal smokescreen with no relevance to the discussion – which, by the way, is the second song on side B of the afore-mentioned Bush Critics Greatest Hits tape.

12. Simon Dodd Says:
    April 1st, 2009 at 4:05 pm

    Justin, I apologize – next to TerenceC’s comment, yours is pretty lucid and coherent! ;)

13. Simon Dodd Says:
    April 1st, 2009 at 4:17 pm

    J. Harden Says: “a transparent equivocation” is something of an oxymoron isn’t it?” I wouldn’t think so. Even if an equivocation has no purpose but to mislead or hedge, it could be transparent in either the sense that it fails to disguise the real underlying point, or that it is obvious what is being done, no?

14. J. Harden Says:
    April 1st, 2009 at 4:29 pm

    Simon – Okay, fair enough. I redact the catagorization of a transparent equivocation as being an oxymoron. From hence forth I shall try to make my equivocations more equivocal.

15. TerenceC Says:
    April 1st, 2009 at 4:43 pm

    Say what you want Simone’ but your defense is a mile wide and an inch deep.

16. Simon Dodd Says:
    April 1st, 2009 at 5:14 pm

    Terence, since you have already shot yourself in the leg by writing a comment revealing either total ignorance of the nature, purpose, and practice of signing statements, or at least a willingness to misrepresent such for partisan ends, you’ve more-or-less taken yourself out of the duel without any need for me to fire a shot – defensive or otherwise.

17. TerenceC Says:
    April 1st, 2009 at 5:53 pm

    Simone’ – I promised myself I wouldn’t allow a second year law student to bait me. However, if I don’t know what I’m talking about then neither does the American Bar Association.

    http://www.abanet.org/media/releases/news072406.html

    Signing statements do allow the President to subvert laws enacted by legislative process – and they are a problem since they violate the Separation of Powers.

Leave a Reply

Related Posts:

• Rick Santelli Leads A Revolt At The CBOT
• 2010: The Year Of The Anti-Incumbents? Not Really.
• Rep Roy Blunt (R-MO): McCain Stopped The Deal