Greenwald nails it
Guest blogging on Hullabaloo, Glen G. rises to the challenge, and makes the hypocrisy of the monarchists inescapable.
What we really have from these paragons of Judicial Restraint trying to defend George Bush is everything except plain language and original intent – the very tools of construction which these "conservatives," when not concocting legal defenses for the President, claim that they believe in. That’s because the plain language of the law is crystal clear ("A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally— (1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute") and leaves no doubt that George Bush broke it.Remember when hypocrisy was still a bad thing?
The clarity of this law is why the Administration is reduced to peddling legal theories which, no matter how they are sliced, amount to a claim that George Bush has the right to break the law. And to argue that he has that right, they are employing on George Bush's behalf the very legal theories which advocates of "judicial restraint" have spent the last two decades ridiculing and attacking.
posted by bluememe at 1/04/2006
1 Comments:
Even in hypocrisy, you have to give the apologists points for consistency. They also still claim to be for limited government and fiscal responsibility. Oh yeah and weren't they supposed to be the reformers who would clean up Washington corruption?
What I cannot fathom as hard as I might try is why they are expending all this effort on the likes of George W Bush. It would be sad if they weren't such dangerous fools.
Post a Comment
<< Home