Do you think that the provision to appoint attornies without congressional oversight was:

a) a provision of the Act to be used in case Congress was unable to meet or was attacked and subject to massive losses of Members

or

b) a Chimpy McBushHitlerShrubBurtonMcExxonCo. loophole to help take over the country?

Quote from: WerekoalaDo you think that the provision to appoint attornies without congressional oversight was:

a) a provision of the Act to be used in case Congress was unable to meet or was attacked and subject to massive losses of Members

or

b) a Chimpy McBushHitlerShrubBurtonMcExxonCo. loophole to help take over the country?

The latter. Bush's neocon buddied basically want to dominate america thru any means possible, and stacking the judicial branch of government with neocon drones is just another way to make sure that the neocon views on social issues get crammed down people's throats.

So it wasn't lack of clarity in typing.

How much tin foil do you go through, man?

Quote from: James J SkachSo it wasn't lack of clarity in typing.

How much tin foil do you go through, man?

Hmm, depends on what I'm cooking that week. Why?

It ain't tin foil.  The Neo-Conservatives are known for adhering to "the ends justify the means" in their actions, and that applies as much to domestic as to foreign affairs.  Since you need power to act, whatever they deem fit to take and hold power is justified so long as they have the power to do so, and if that means using existing dodgy legislations--and making more of it--then they do it gladly.

Sounds alot like... POLITICIANS! Wow, imagine that.

I almost hope we get a Demo back in the white House in '08 so we can bash the donkies for a few years.

I am increasingly convinced that the best thing that the Shrub will do for humanity is show everyone just how much the "rule of law" relies upon men for it to do what its said to do.  Positive law--that ink on the page, legislation--is just a tool folks; it does nothing until folks pick it up and use it, and like all tools it can be (and often is) misused, so just passing laws doesn't mean shit- you have to have men on the ground doing the work visibly and audibly for it to succeed.  As for accountability, if it doesn't involved increasingly severe sanctions for increasingly powerful or important positions it too means nothing.

Would the Patriot Act be more widely supported if it were used to track down the most horrid of infidels: the fat joke makers?

Quote from: James McMurrayWould the Patriot Act be more widely supported if it were used to track down the most horrid of infidels: the fat joke makers?

No, I'd rather see the PC speech gestapo go after them like they'd go after someone who made black jokes.

A little "despise them until they help me" thinking goes a long way.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerIt ain't tin foil.

It is when you consider the stupidity of this particular discussion. The President, who will be replaced by Jan. 2009, is grabbing for power through...US Attorneys? Who can all be fired upon the next Administration taking office. Not to mention the fact that the President has already said the replacements for those fired will be subject to Senate oversight - even though by law they don't have to be. Not to mention if the Senate could actually pass legislation that only addressed one thing (which is virtually impossible - regardless of party), to change this loophole, I'd bet it would get signed into law - by this President.

So yeah, in this case, tin foil.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerThe Neo-Conservatives are known for adhering to "the ends justify the means" in their actions, and that applies as much to domestic as to foreign affairs.

Whereas the Democrats would never think of such a thing...sure...riiiight...

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerSince you need power to act, whatever they deem fit to take and hold power is justified so long as they have the power to do so, and if that means using existing dodgy legislations--and making more of it--then they do it gladly.

Ibid.

The point isn't that the Democrats are saints. It's rather that both sides are bad people, and we should do everything we can to defend our freedom against the superficially reasonable attempts to usurp it, no matter whether we have in the past supported one party or another. A strong executive benefits no free people.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThe point isn't that the Democrats are saints. It's rather that both sides are bad people, and we should do everything we can to defend our freedom against the superficially reasonable attempts to usurp it, no matter whether we have in the past supported one party or another. A strong executive benefits no free people.

Nor does a strong Congress, nor Judiciary.

I'm just not sure how this little bit of hysteria applies...

Quote from: James J SkachNor does a strong Congress, nor Judiciary.

I'm just not sure how this little bit of hysteria applies...

Well, Congress is quite weak at the moment, despite being controlled by a party hostile to the President. And the judiciary under John Roberts is pursuing a minimalist line. So America has a weak judiciary, a weak Congress, but a strong executive branch which is taking advantage of the weakness of the other two branches to extend its own power. Once again, checks and balances are a good thing.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineWell, Congress is quite weak at the moment, despite being controlled by a party hostile to the President. And the judiciary under John Roberts is pursuing a minimalist line. So America has a weak judiciary, a weak Congress, but a strong executive branch which is taking advantage of the weakness of the other two branches to extend its own power. Once again, checks and balances are a good thing.

Your last line is, as I've pointed out, where we agree.

I'm not sure why you see the Congress as weak at this point.  Wasn't the 2006 election supposed to be the paradigm shift?

And it's interesting that you see a "minimalist" Judiciary as weak.  Are you equating "minimalist" with "strict interpretation of the Constitution?"

See, we can all agree that balance is a good thing.  We just all define it differently.