Thanks to Queen Anthai for drawing the following to my attention: According to a brand spanking new law, it is now illegal for internet denizens to–get this–“annoy” people while posting under fake names.
Now I’ve been an outspoken critic of people who snipe from anonymity. But it would never have occurred to me to ask the government to step in and do something about it. I’d just as soon leave it in the hands of resourceful guys like Glenn. As much as the notion of sending X-Ray to the lock-up for a couple years appeals to me, certainly this has to be a travesty of First Amendment inteference. I can just see it:
“What are you in for?”
“I shot and killed a Federal agent. What about you?”
“I pìššëd øff Peter David on his website”
Did anyone tell Bush that there are amendments other than the second that he’s supposed to protect? Read more at:
http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html?tag=nefd.top
• 
Soooo, is Peter David your real name? I bet I could get you sent for 20 years in the cooler for the “freedom” clock alone. ; )
Actually, the only thing annoying about that is the way the java script keeps crashing my browser.
First of all, Jeff, that’s quoting an SC ruling, not a regulation. Second, how is does one define what an “average person” finds offensive? How does one determine a community standard? Should a TV show be shown to a certain percentage of residents in a town and let them vote on whether it’s obscene?
Desk Anchor: And now we go to April O’Neil, reporting live from the City Jail….
April: Today we’ve seen an incredible upswing in the population of the holding cell. All the people you see behind me were arrested just in the past few days. Folks, what are the charges against you? Are you alleged to be members of the Foot Clan?
Jailbird #1: The wha?
Jailbird #2: You mean, like, ninjas?
Jailbird #3: No way. Pirates would be cooler, but seriously, no.
April: So tell us, then, why ARE you in jail today?
Jailbird #1: Personally, I blame Commander Taco. No offense, Rob, if you’re listening.
Jailbird #2: Don’t be such a troll, man. You could’ve totally opted to log in before you posted.
Jailbird #1: Yeah? So could *you*.
April: I don’t understand — Commander Taco? Trolls? Could someone explain this a little more clearly?
Jailbird #3: I can see that you’re not familiar with Slashdot. Go google it, you’ll be glad you did. Just don’t ask anybody to explain their nicknames.
Jailbird #2: In fact, lady, I’ll help you along — it’s a website where people post summaries of and links to news articles around the Internet, and then we talk about them. And we talk about a lot of other stuff, too. You don’t even have to actually join to participate, but it helps.
Jailbird #1: Yeah, just don’t be surprised if you aren’t taken too seriously while you’re posting as an Anonymous Coward.
Jailbird #3: Except by a few literalist nutballs out there, apparently.
April: I still don’t understand. Is this an activist group or something? What did you all do that could lead to an arrest?
all three: Nothing!
Jailbird #1: Somebody posted anonymously, somebody else around here got offended and then read that they could get the Anonymous Coward who wrote that post thrown in jail for it, and here we all are.
April: So you’re all under arrest because of something one of you did?
Jailbird #2: {huffy sigh} Arr tee eff aaay, lady.
Jailbird #4: Mod user down: flamebait.
Jailbird #2: Take off, {bleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep}.
Jailbird #3: {talking over #2 and #4} Not exactly. We’re all customers on the same ISP in this area, and we all posted as Anonymous Cowards during the right time-frame that the District Attorney thinks it could’ve been one of us. I guess they don’t have enough geeks on staff, because they can’t figure out how to narrow it down any better. We figure they’re hoping one of us will take the rap just to get this over with.
April: So **do** you know who they should be charging?
Jailbird #1: I think it was Cowboy Neal.
Bush signed the law. Peter had some objection to it based on what he had read. Are you saying that anyone who interprets the law differently from you is deranged? Maybe his interpretation was a little mistaken, but how does that make him deranged? That just makes you sound spiteful and contemptuous of anyone who doesn’t share your view of the current president.
No, I just think that PAD came across the column, took it as gospel because it synched up nicely to his worldview, and passed it on without bothering to read the legislation in question. Interpretation of primary source material doesn’t enter into it when you don’t even bother to look at the primary source material. PAD was just plain sloppy on this one.
-Dave O’Connell
Well the AMA wouldn’t, because it’s the American Psychiatric Association (APA) that publishes the DSM-IV, the book that lists all officially recognized mental diseases and disorders.
Point taken, sort of. But then, I wasn’t seriously contending that Bush Derangement Syndrome is a medical condition in my original post, either. You might as well take someone to task for saying a person is in the throes of “dance fever.” True, the dance-a-holic in question might not actually have a higher-than-normal temperature. But to point that out is rather beside the point, don’t you think?
-Dave O’Connell
Den, that quote was taken from the FCC’s FAQ pages. Posted here was “Still waiting for that FCC regulatory definition of “obscene”.” So, there’s what the FCC defines as obscene.
And something obscene on a broadcast has nothing to do with something being annoying via e-mail or even on the telephone. Thus, my answer.
So, if you want to talk about broadcast, there’s the problem. Broadcasters can’t really know what wouldn’t fit community standards until they air something that generates a lot of complaints. It doesn’t take many letters or e-mails to the FCC to generate an investigation and stations would rather not have that happen.
“Should a TV show be shown to a certain percentage of residents in a town and let them vote on whether it’s obscene?”
No. If a station decides not to air something, too bad. Local folks will just have to wait the 4-5 months before a show is released on DVD or moves to non-broadcast television.
I made a living as a Telemarketer for many years. I am a tad biased.
No one thinks twice about the adds we click thru while surfing. Nor do T.V. adds really bother any of us anymore long as you have a DVR.
Congress picks the weakest stuff to legislate.
Telemarketing gets more expensive. Its harder to reach the people that will buy from the ones that know how to do it right. Simply because consumers complained long enough and elected officials needed to be perceived as public friendly.
Telemarketing is just like any ad you see. I was easy to ignore, if I interupted a customer I would not get the sale.
My dad is a staunch Republican I am a Liberal. We argue a lot. One thing we agree on is either way it seems to work like a pendulum. Some years its more conservative others more liberal. I teased him a lot while Clinton was in office =).
We all need to remember what the senators are doing and vote em out. When a non-republican president gets into office he/she will have the power base to swing the pendulum back the other way quickly.
“No, I just think that PAD came across the column, took it as gospel because it synched up nicely to his worldview, and passed it on without bothering to read the legislation in question. Interpretation of primary source material doesn’t enter into it when you don’t even bother to look at the primary source material. PAD was just plain sloppy on this one.”
Well, number one, bite me. Number two, since you’re apparently reading challenged, you couldn’t parse that the column was brought TO my attention rather than that I stumbled over it. And number three, despite your contention that this isn’t newsworthy, I’ve read over the supplemental material and am not remotely convinced that Bush, who has a track record of granting his people the most extreme lattitude in his “interpretation” of the law (Big Brother is listening), will not grant them leave to similarly take as broad an interpretation as possible to these revisions.
Once upon a time, the American government “in time of war” used broadly written statutes to throw Americans in jail simply because they dissented. So I don’t exactly trust the notion of anyone standing there and batting their eyes doe-like claiming that, Oh no, mercy me, you’re making far too big a thing out of this because the government would neeeeever do anything like that, would never abuse power, you must be deraaaaanged.
PAD
Which makes it all the more puzzling that so many liberals were the ones who sponsored the law in the first place (and they ALL voted for it in the Senate). Are they just not very smart?
Well, since there was hardly a groundswell of conservative opposition (as evidenced by the fact that it passed… ;), the same could be asked of them….
Interpretation of primary source material doesn’t enter into it when you don’t even bother to look at the primary source material.
Sounds alot like Bush when he ‘interprets’ laws & the Constitution.
No one thinks twice about the adds we click thru while surfing.
Wanna bet?
For one, most intelligent people don’t click on the ads. Second, I have this wonderful little tool for Firefox called AdBlock (which is very popular, btw), which blocks many of them from even loading on the page to begin with.
Well, number one, bite me. Number two, since you’re apparently reading challenged, you couldn’t parse that the column was brought TO my attention rather than that I stumbled over it.
Whether or not one “stumbles” across something or has their “drawn to it”, there is still an “accidental” or “unplanned” aspect to it, is there not? Maybe, maybe not, but I will accept nit-picking in lieu of something that furthers your initial argument.
I see a different argument in your recent post, one that deals with your level of trust in Bush’s interpretation of the law. A variation on the old “fake-but-accurate” defense, to put it in 60 Minutes-speak. But that is a different matter than your original post. Is it really a “travesty of First Amendment interference” to clarify that the term a “telecommunications device” can include something that utilizes the Internet? Given that this is what Bush actually did, that’s what you’re left to argue. Molehill, prepare to become mountain.
As for the rest of the legislation, what do you think of it? It is the “Violence Against Women Act”, after all. Would you have otherwise approved of this legislation? And if so, would you have applauded Bush on this blog for vetoing it according to your misgivings or would you have demonized him as “anti-woman” or somesuch language for opposing the main provisions? Just curious.
Once upon a time, the American government “in time of war” used broadly written statutes to throw Americans in jail simply because they dissented. So I don’t exactly trust the notion of anyone standing there and batting their eyes doe-like claiming that, Oh no, mercy me, you’re making far too big a thing out of this because the government would neeeeever do anything like that, would never abuse power, you must be deraaaaanged.
I’ll assume you’re just indulging in rhetoric and are not “reading-challenged” when you suggest that I’m batting my eyes doe-like, or for that matter, standing. I am, in fact, sitting down and have successfully reigned in my eyelashes’ spastic tendencies, at least for the time being. Also, I never said that the government would never abuse power, just that it didn’t seem like a valid complaint against Bush in this context. But we’ll let that slide, because I’m not nit-picking.
All irony aside: Look, I don’t begrudge you not wanting certain parts of history to repeat themselves (your description brings to mind Lincoln’s conduct during the Civil War.) But there is a big difference between being vigilant and disintegrating into knee-jerk hysterics over the news that using the Internet makes you a user of a telecommunications device.
-Dave O’Connell
Let’s beat the nit-pickers to it! Here we go! That first sentence of mine should’ve read:
Whether or not one “stumbles” across something or has their *attention* “drawn to it”, there is still an “accidental” or “unplanned” aspect to it, is there not?
Now that that’s cleared up, it’s time for me to go bite PAD, per his request. I’m not that reading-challenged, you know. I know an invite when I see one.
-Dave O’Connell
Actually if you really want to get technical about it, I didn’t use the word “stumble” in the post PAD cited. I used “come across”. PAD, you quoted me accurately, but then as you made your “reading-challenged” jab, you became “reading-challenged” yourself and cited me as saying “stumbled.” “Come across” is a pretty neutral term, no? Whatever. I’m not the silly man who sloppily brought it up.
-Dave O’Connell
Craig when I type “click thru” I mean hit the red x and close the pop up. I am aware of ad blockers etc.
My point is you can say no and hang up the phone. You can click thru the add. Pay for satellite radio, use a dvr. Your privacy from any form of advertisment can be bought. Either with a small amount of time or with real cash.
true patrick, but the premise was that this would be used by conswervatives for eeeeeevil. So of course they would be for it, (which would be dopey–as someone else pointed out, these things go in cycles and the law you use against someone today will be used against you tomorrow.)
which would be dopey–as someone else pointed out, these things go in cycles and the law you use against someone today will be used against you tomorrow
And yet, that hasn’t stopped them from suggesting stupid crap like the “nuclear option” for judicial confirmations, has it?
How was that suggestion stupid? The threat of it got them what they wanted. Roberts sailed through and Alito looks to do the same unless one more day of listening to Biden drone on causes the poor man to gnaw thorugh his arm in a pathetic attempt at escape.
One more point–while from PAD’s point of view this wasn’t an overreaction due to his perception of the past trangressions of the administration, from a conservative point of view it is getting hard to take liberal doomsday scenarios seriously. there have been too many of them. Remember the draft? Is there ANYONE who STILL expects to see the draft reinstated in the next 2 years? yet those who doubted it just a short time ago were chided for being naive. The army just announced its 7th straight month of reaching its goals. There will be no draft and there was never any chance that there would be one.
“Is there ANYONE who STILL expects to see the draft reinstated in the next 2 years? yet those who doubted it just a short time ago were chided for being naive. The army just announced its 7th straight month of reaching its goals. There will be no draft and there was never any chance that there would be one.”
The army keeps meeting recruiting goals because they’ve lowered their goals to reflect today’s lower enlistment rate.
There’s not been a draft…because the government is handing out money left and right to pay for private security forces in Iraq. Missions that rightfully should be performed by the best-equipped, highly trained and motivated, best volunteer military force on the planet (and unlike yesterday’s hearings, I don’t mean those statements to be at all sarcastic, unlike the constant reference to Justice O’Conner as the “model” Supreme Court Justice) are instead being performed by private citizens that are basically mercanaries, hired guns, maybe with training, maybe not. Who knows?
Think not, says some? Those 4 civilians that were ambushed on a bridge some several months ago, and then had their corpses hung from the bridge? Private security. Who’s families are now suing the company they worked for for lack of proper equipment and mission personnel.
That’s the only reason there won’t be a draft, because the Administration can just hire the troops it needs. We’ll withdraw our military units, and replace them with private mercanaries, for as long as it takes to restore a US friendly order to Iraq.
How was that suggestion stupid?
“as someone else pointed out, these things go in cycles and the law you use against someone today will be used against you tomorrow.)”
Your quote, and one I agree with.
That’s why it’s stupid. I thought the stupidity was obvious, but apparently not.
I think Dave is missing the problem in the legislation. It’s all well and good to make a law against making anonymous, harrassing phone calls. Those are obviously targeted for a specific effect. However, once you broaden the provision to cover all communication over the internet, you cover a wide range of communication that is, often by default, anonymous.
Anonymous phone calls are almost without exception intended “to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass.” Anonymous internet communications are not.
People do not willingly involve themselves in prolonged phonecalls with anonymous people. (900 numbers aside.) People on the internet engage with anonymous people, intentionally, all the time.
And there’s no indication that the expanded law is limited to VOIP or email or IM or other 1-on-1 communications, so it would seem to cover anonymous postings on blogs, message boards, and other web pages, as well.
The law is intended to prevent cyberstalking, but the standard (“to annoy”) is too low, and the methods of communication (essentially any) are too broad.
So consider this: You don’t have the right to call up random people and scream “BUSH IS THE GREATEST PRESIDENT EVER!!” According to this law, you can’t post that sentence anonymously on a message board.
The law is obviously ill-conceived, too vague, unenforceable, AND unconstitutional.
It’s just bad law.
According to this law, you can’t post that sentence anonymously on a message board.
That’s not true. At the very least you have to be able to show intent to cause harm. You’d have to be a hardcore moonbat to get a case of the vapors over that one. Basically, this law (which I don’t like) does for the internet what was already done for phones. I doubt that anyone has been prosecuted for calling up people and saying “Bush is the greatest president ever.” Although some might consider that to be obscene, I don’t think they’ll get very far.
“as someone else pointed out, these things go in cycles and the law you use against someone today will be used against you tomorrow.)”
Your quote, and one I agree with.
That’s why it’s stupid. I thought the stupidity was obvious, but apparently not.
If they had actually dropped the bomb that might be so but they didn’t. They got what they wanted–the Democrats backed down with a face saving compromise that pretty much ensures that Bush will get his people through.
You could argue that when the Democrats get in power they will make the same threat but since the Republicans seem to allow Democratic presidents to get the people they want for Supreme Court that may not be necessary. Or they’ll let them pull the trigger. Frankly, I’d just as soon see majority rule return to the Senate anyway, I don’t see why a 60% majority is needed.
Drew’s point is a good one. I’m not a fan of enshrining “annoyance” into law as something we should be protected from. But this definitely predates Bush, and if you’re going to have it apply to telecommunications devices, I don’t see why the Internet should be excluded from that category. (Not everyone on this board agrees. Fair enough. I wouldn’t characterize it as a subversion of the First Amendment, though.)
So in that sense, the change is sensible. Clarify what seems to be obvious and make it unmistakably obvious. What came before that might be problematic.
-Dave O’Connell
Those comparing annoying phone calls to annoying Internet postings seem to forget one thing.
How many annoying long distance phone calls do you get on average? Not a whole lot, I’m betting.
How many Internet scams, spam and other annoyances are from outside the territorial US? Is there a number which goes that high?
Consider: I’m Canadian, living in Canada, and an ‘operator’ (sort of traffic cop) in an Internet chat room about Japan. The channel is hosted somewhere in Britain, I think. One of the most annoying individual (who posted under an alias, of course) who found ways around several bans, turned out to be from Holland. So, OK, who’s got jurisdiction on this one?
So, yes, another ill-conceived, unworkable law by politicians who haven’t a clue what they’re doing.
You could argue that when the Democrats get in power they will make the same threat but since the Republicans seem to allow Democratic presidents to get the people they want for Supreme Court that may not be necessary.
Supreme Court is one thing, and how many did Clinton get to nominate?
But Federal appointments in general… well, the Republicans denied quite a few of those to Clinton, more so than the number Democrats have refused to Bush to date iirc.
Yet that doesn’t stop the nuclear option from being mentioned any time the Democrats decided to think for themselves for once.
I was really hoping that the Dems would force the issue with Roberts, but, yeah, I agree it probably won’t happen with Alito either. These guys need to grow so gonads already.
Well, I’m of the opinion that qualified people should not be excluded from the judiciary, so I don’t want to see republicans doom good democrats or visa versa. I especially object to the way both sides try to justify pure partisanship by pretending that the people they are blacklisting are racists or otherwise unfit.
Clinton got to nominate two, same as as Bush has so far. Clinton’s nominees won acceptance by 97-3 and 87-9.
I especially object to the way both sides try to justify pure partisanship by pretending that the people they are blacklisting are racists or otherwise unfit.
That pretty much poisons the well. It prevents fuller discussions such as, oh, say, does Alito give too much deference to legislative or executive branch intentions (in my mind, that was the fatal flaw in the Court that allowed WWII relocation camps).
Some comments on the “annoyance” law:
First, it applies only to the portion of Internet-based activity defined as “Telecommunication.” This is defined elsewhere in US law, with the FCC being the defining body. For the record, direct person-to-person email and Voice-over-IP are the only two forms of internet activity which qualify, per the FCC, as telecommunications. The rest of it, including blogs and forum-style outlets like this, are considered “information services,” not “telecommunications.”
Second, has it occured to any of you yet that the goal of this thing was to extend current legislation governing prank telephone calls made to and from persons with traditional telephone service to also cover calss to or from persons using VoIP services. In other words, it makes calls to or from those with telephone service through their cable or other broadband service, or cellular phone service, subject to the same prank calling and obscene calling laws as everyone else. It may be “anti-free speech” or “about darn time” depending on you rview, but it’s hard to make a case for it being revolutionary, unprecedented, or likely to change the face of society.
Now, I would also like someone to tell me how or why this is Bush’s fault (or to his credit, for those who like this). It was a spurious amendment attached to a must-pass bill (funding for the Justice Department). As long as the JD budget was acceptable, no sane President was going to veto this sucker because of some lightweight amendment that got glued on, any more than anyone in Congress or the Senate was going to pitch much of a fit about it. Once the Congress-critters got it stuck on there, it was a slam-dunk. So, why aren’t you yelling about the people who actually did it?
I get really depressed when I realize that the level of political discourse has sunk to “I hate Bush” “Well then, you must be a mush-brain Libral. I love him!” Isn’t there anyone left in this country with a working brain dell who will at least blame the actual perpetrators of legislative “action,” even if they are too lazy to bother to find out if the law they are upset about even exists.
Is there ANYONE who STILL expects to see the draft reinstated in the next 2 years?
Yes.
As for the SC nominating process (and I’ve no idea how we got there), I agree that the rhetoric both pro and con can get way out of hand.
You want a good reason to reject someone, taken from a previous administration?
Clarence Thomas said in his hearings that he had never discussed Roe v. Wade as a law student. Never. Never ever.
A half-decent senator could very easily say in response to that, “either that is a lie or you are one of the most manifestly incurious legal scholars on the planet. Either option is sufficient grounds to reject your nomination.”
No bias, no racism — just “you’re an unqualified dork.”
(And BTW, Bill, I hope you would accept obvious racism as a disqualifier if it’s manifestly present. I can’t think of any nominees in recent history to whom it would apply, but let’s say, for instance, that someone chose to nominate David Duke to the court.)
TWL
As long as the JD budget was acceptable, no sane President was going to veto this sucker because of some lightweight amendment that got glued on,
Isn’t this why Clinton got the line-item veto, to be able to veto stupid crap ‘glued on’ to another bill?
Maybe somebody forgot to explain that part to Bush.
(And BTW, Bill, I hope you would accept obvious racism as a disqualifier if it’s manifestly present. I can’t think of any nominees in recent history to whom it would apply, but let’s say, for instance, that someone chose to nominate David Duke to the court.)
Well, of course. It was the pretending that the nominee was a racist that bothered me, especially when the only real reason for the opposition is the party affiliation of the president who nominated them. But when Teddy kennedy tries to say that Alito has never written an opinion on the merits in favor of a person of color alleging race discrimination on the job it’s obvious what he is trying to do. A careless reader might assume from that statement that Alito always sides against “people of color” when, in fact, he has ruled multiple times in favor of minority plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases. He made the ruling but because he did not write an opinion I guess it doesn’t count.
And this is from Kennedy. If a Supreme Court nominee ever came before the congress with the same amount of baggage that Teddy has, he’d be ridden out of town on a rail.
“One more point–while from PAD’s point of view this wasn’t an overreaction due to his perception of the past trangressions of the administration, from a conservative point of view it is getting hard to take liberal doomsday scenarios seriously. there have been too many of them. Remember the draft? Is there ANYONE who STILL expects to see the draft reinstated in the next 2 years?”
Yes. Right now there’s stop gap measures that are as good as draft, such as extending tours of duty by months if not years, and hauling in people in their 40s and 50s who are stunned to be ripped away from their lives and shoved back into the army. And if/when they reinstitute a full draft, they’ll probably call it something else. But yes, absolutely, I expect to see it back.
As for scenarios, you know what I’m personally sick of? Knee-jerk conservative support for Bush over his various doomsday scenarios. So much so that he feels the need to spy on Americans “because if they’re talking to bin Laden, I want to know about it.” Every aspect of his foreign (and much of his domestic) policy is based on worst case scenarios and the language of fear. Conservatives (and Bush) voice concern about danger to the country, and it’s vigilance and patriotic. Liberals voice concern about basic freedoms, and it’s doomsday scenarios that are hard to take seriously.
Meanwhile in the Bushverse, debate about the war could possibly bring “comfort to the enemy.” With that sort of attitude, *anything* that can be used to squelch opinions being voiced is something to be wary about.
PAD
Agreed Peter.
People that use fear to lead will never be in a position to lead for very long. I am ashamed that Bush jr made 8 years out of public fear.
I am very worried that as his legacy he leaves behind a court that will make rulings in the same vein that gave him the first 4 years.
When the Supreme court re-interprets the law and its flawed is there a way to change it? If so is that an act of congress?
Is there a way around knee-jerk reaction in any situation? I have never been able to make a choice and figure out if its the best answer until later.
You know, when reading the act, it might be well to examine the sentence structure. It’s all very well to argue that it’s only supposed to cover “annoying” communications that also “cause personal harm”, but in the actual act, the operand in the sentence describing affected communications isn’t “and” – it’s “or”. In other words, the communication objected to can be harmful AND annoying, simply harmful – or simply annoying.
Remember, this is an administration that has very probably listened in on my calls to Dell’s customer “service” and financial departments, because they’re overseas. (“Boss, this number shows a pattern of lots of calls in a short period to India, where there are some Islamic fundamentalist groups. Think we should tap those calls, just in case?”)
“You could argue that when the Democrats get in power they will make the same threat but since the Republicans seem to allow Democratic presidents to get the people they want for Supreme Court that may not be necessary.”
And who, exactly, have the Democrats prevented Bush from appointing to the SCOTUS? Miers was the target of pre-hearing criticism from both sides of the aisle. Alito looks like he’s going to get confirmed. He appears to be getting hammered, but he should be getting hammered. He’s not answering the questions the committee are putting to him. He’s responding, but he’s not answering. Ginsberg answered the Roe question honestly, and truthfully….she supported the decision. It was clear which way she was likely to vote on that matter. Even Justice Roberts admitted that Roe is settled precedent. Alito won’t even go that far, and he was called on it yesterday. He’ll talk up and down, left and right, about other Consitutional issues that are like to come before him if he gets appointed. But he avoids responding on Roe. He also demonstrates a near-perfect memory of his prior case record, but can’t remember why he listed a controversial group on a job application. And he can’t remember why he joined.
The reason the democrats are concerned with Alito isn’t because he’s conservative: they already KNOW that. They’re concerned because he’s not being very honest in his responses. He’s not lying, so far as anyone can tell, but he’s avoiding the hard issues for some reason. I think that’s a cause for concern in someone that’s going to be wrestling with the most difficult and important issues that affect everyone in the country.
Ginsberg answered the Roe question honestly, and truthfully….she supported the decision. It was clear which way she was likely to vote on that matter.
Hmmm…as I recall there were a number of questions and issues that she refused to comment on. (according to wikipedia then-Judiciary Committee Chairman Joe Biden told her to not answer questions she did not feel comfortable answering. He’s obviously gotten over THAT idea!)But what I find interesting is that if it’s true that she was very very clear on her position doesn’t it say something good about those pro-life senators who voted to confirm her anyway?
At any rate, if that is the actual problem they have with him why is gasbag Kennedy grilling him about having a Vanguard mutual fund…gee, so do I. It’s one of the things those of us without a huge family trust fund tend to end up with, not that he’d know. I like the suggestion that someone made that if another opening happens Bush should nominate Kennedy, just to watch him finally get the kind of treatment he so richly deserves. What a fraud.(when one reads the facts of the Vanguard case it is obvious that it has no more relevance than the fact that Justice Ginsburg has participated in over 20 Supreme Court cases involving companies in which her husband held stock.
And while I genuinely like Biden, one of the few actual adults in a position of leadership in the Democratic Party, it’s hard to take seriously the claim that he hasn’t been able to get the information he needs when a large part of the problem is that he is apparently pathologically incapable of falling out of love with the sound of his own voice. Even some of the moonbats at Democraticunderground have reported shouting “Shut up! Shut up!” at their TVs when chatty Cathy gets going.
At any rate, Alito is a lock. I can tell because of the aforementioned backstabbing going on at the far left sites–they are already looking for scapegoats. Leahy seems to have pìššëd them off for some reason–what, it wasn’t enough they got Mrs. Alito to cry, they should have physically thrown stuff at her too?
And if/when they reinstitute a full draft, they’ll probably call it something else. But yes, absolutely, I expect to see it back.
When? Within the next 2 years?
(BTW, an earlier poster claimed that the armed forces have been able to meet their goals lately because they have lowered them. Is there any way to check this out? All I’ve found is that the number of soldiers is greater now than it was before 9/11. Anyone know where to find info about what the goals have been through the years?)
doesn’t it say something good about those pro-life senators who voted to confirm her anyway?
Yeah, that for many of these guys, being pro-life is nothing more than a talking point to help get them elected to office.
Is it even conceivable (rimshot!) that they might have voted that way because they thought she was well qualified…or does every action, right or wrong HAVE to be the result of venal behavior?
Is it even conceivable (rimshot!) that they might have voted that way because they thought she was well qualified…or does every action, right or wrong HAVE to be the result of venal behavior?
Having never researched Ginsburg’s confirmation hearings, I couldn’t say.
But that doesn’t explain the bìŧçhìņg and moaning from Republicans regarding Bush’s nominations, when they rejected (iirc) more of Clinton’s nominations.
Shouldn’t this also say something about those on the right who refused to give Miers her supposedly well-deserved chance for an up or down vote?
Hypocracy is great, isn’t it.
Speaking of stupid laws…
How about this one out of the UK getting back into the news: British men face trial over “Al-Jazeera bombing” leak.
The two were arrested under Britain’s Official Secrets Act. Yet, while the White House has called this memo “outlandish” and Blair has denied that Bush wanted to bomb Al-Jazeera, the British government is putting these two men on trial and have threatened the media with arrests should they leak the memo any further.
If there’s nothing to it, why is there a trial?
How does the joke go? The Official Secrets Act isn’t there to protect secrets; it’s there to protect officials.
Speaking of stupid laws…
How about this one out of the UK getting back into the news: British men face trial over “Al-Jazeera bombing” leak.
The two were arrested under Britain’s Official Secrets Act. Yet, while the White House has called this memo “outlandish” and Blair has denied that Bush wanted to bomb Al-Jazeera, the British government is putting these two men on trial and have threatened the media with arrests should they leak the memo any further.
If there’s nothing to it, why is there a trial?
How does the joke go? The Official Secrets Act isn’t there to protect secrets; it’s there to protect officials.
Clinton got to nominate two, same as as Bush has so far. Clinton’s nominees won acceptance by 97-3 and 87-9.
Just make sure no one uses those numbers as an attempt to show how “obstructionist” the Dems are since the confirmation skids were greased well beforehand. Clinton, in an admirable show of practical bipartisanship, got together with GOP leaders to discuss potential nominees, trying to get who he wanted while making sure that the choices were one the the other side could live with. The confirmation hearings and vote were almost pro forma.
The idea of such bipartisanship from the W. Adminstration — hëll, the current GOP — is laughable. The current meme seems to be “Open wide while we cram this down your throats. Oh, and don’t choke, gag, or complain because if you do, you hate America.”
Shouldn’t this also say something about those on the right who refused to give Miers her supposedly well-deserved chance for an up or down vote?
Who says it was well deserved?
just make sure no one uses those numbers as an attempt to show how “obstructionist” the Dems are since the confirmation skids were greased well beforehand. Clinton, in an admirable show of practical bipartisanship, got together with GOP leaders to discuss potential nominees, trying to get who he wanted while making sure that the choices were one the the other side could live with. The confirmation hearings and vote were almost pro forma.
The idea of such bipartisanship from the W. Adminstration — hëll, the current GOP — is laughable. The current meme seems to be “Open wide while we cram this down your throats. Oh, and don’t choke, gag, or complain because if you do, you hate America.”
Ok, fair enough–can anyone give examples of a few judges that share Bush’s views to the same degree that Ginsburg shared Clinton’s who would be supported by Democrats?
If Roberts and to a lesser degree Alito are considered extremists it’s hard to imagine who would be acceptable, other than someone from the left, which is about as likely as Clinton renominating Bork.
At any rate, if the attacks on Bush’s picks are as incompetant as the last few days have been the issue is probably moot. Democrats have done the impossible–made themselves look so bad they knocked the Jack Abramoff story off the front page. I keep saying that there is no way that the Democrats can’t pick up seats in both houses in the 2006 elections but I’m probably seriously understimating their ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Which makes it all the more puzzling that so many liberals were the ones who sponsored the law in the first place (and they ALL voted for it in the Senate). Are they just not very smart?
No, they just didn’t realize the president, though ostensibly a strict constructionist when it comes to the SCOTUS and Congress, is apparently a loose-to-the-point-of-diarrhea constructionist when it comes to the Executive Branch when they first conceived this law. I mean when the President decides without precedent that he can conduct illegal wiretaps despite very accomadating laws and pretty much states that he’ll ignore the McCain anti-torture law whenever he feels like it because he’s the President, God only know how he’ll interpret this potential gem.
So, no, it’s not the liberals aren’t very smart, but rather that liberals reasonably assumed that the President would be the conservative he claimed to be and trusted that he wouldn’t overreach.
They really should have known better. They’re finally getting the plot now.
Who says it was well deserved?
Anybody in the GOP who says that Alito deserves an up or down vote. The same lot that refused to give one to Miers.
It doesn’t matter whether she was qulified for the job or not (which she wasn’t).
The same group who said Roberts’ religious background is important after saying that we shouldn’t talk about Miers’ religious beliefs.
Hypocrits, through and through.
Shouldn’t this also say something about those on the right who refused to give Miers her supposedly well-deserved chance for an up or down vote?
Who says it was well deserved?
Bill Frist, for one:
“All 100 members of the U.S. Senate will soon decide a basic question of fairness. Will we permit a fair, up-or-down vote on every judicial nominee?”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-05-15-oppose_x.htm
And then there’s Sen. John Cornyn:
“All Americans of good faith should at least agree that we need a fair process for selecting judges — with full investigation, full questioning, full debate, and then an up-or-down vote.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/cornyn200505090747.asp
(Now granted, Cornyn’s also the one who after the Terri Schiavo debacle basically said that judges who waded into political frays were at legitimate risk for assassination, so his “up or down vote” might be a bit more final than most.)
And hey, how about Rick Santorum?
“My one motivation is to affirm the constitutional duty of all Senators to give advice and consent on the President’s judicial nominations. That includes a vigorous debate ending in an up-or-down vote.”
http://www.priestsforlife.org/government/santorumfilibusterletter.htm
Karl Rove, Jim DeMint, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Pete Domenici, and Sam Brownback?
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/051114ta_talk_hertzberg
In other words, they’re happy to insist on an “up or down vote” when it’s one they think they’ll win. When someone clearly incompetent is nominated, they’d rather shuffle their feet and mutter platitudes while Other Folks squelch the problem for them.
You want to claim Democrats can be hypocritical sometimes, be my guest — I’ve been saying it for years, and I think it’s healthy to call them on it. But please do not do us the discourtesy of claiming (or implying, as you more often do) that Senate Republicans are any better about it.
TWL
So they realized this when? The law just passed last Thursday. Did Maxine Waters wake up friday morning and realize it was all a horrible mistake?
Your scenario, while comforting in that it confirms your world view, is unlikely. But easily proven–I can expect Nadler, Waters, etc to immediately announce a planned repeal…any…day…now.
Anybody in the GOP who says that Alito deserves an up or down vote. The same lot that refused to give one to Miers.
It doesn’t matter whether she was qualified for the job or not (which she wasn’t).
Well, see, that was sort of my point. If a person isn’t qualified I don’t think they deserve a vote at all. The Meirs nomination was withdrawn, quite rightly. She wasn’t qualified. Sorry, I just don’t see the hypocrisy. If Bush had unwisely insisted that she go before the committee and face what would have been a brutal experience, well yeah, I’d say they should have had an up or down vote and I have no doubt it would have been down. But you are really reaching here.
You want to claim Democrats can be hypocritical sometimes, be my guest — I’ve been saying it for years, and I think it’s healthy to call them on it. But please do not do us the discourtesy of claiming (or implying, as you more often do) that Senate Republicans are any better about it.
Well, since implications are matters of perceptions, it’s a bit hard to argue the point. But so far as Supreme Court nominations go it is simple fact that Republicans have been less likely to blackball a nominee because they differ with the party line on abortion, death penalty, etc. Spin it any way you like. 97-3 and 87-9. And with all due respect to Justices Breyer and Ginsberg, I think that Justice Roberts was a more qualified choice.
But again, the point is moot. I have no doubt that the next time the Democrats manage to nominate a presidential candidate smart enough to actually win the election the Senate Republicans will put on performances every bit as awful as what we saw this week.
Since I think the president has a right to get the qualified candidates they choose approved, I also hope that these future Republicans will also be every bit as successful, which is to say, not very.
Sorry, I just don’t see the hypocrisy.
The Senate Republicans I quoted above said that “every judicial nominee” deserved an up-or-down vote. Not “ones we think are qualified”, not “ones we think we can get confirmed”. Every Single One.
I hope that makes the hypocrisy clearer. If not … well, you’ve been wrong before.
You planning to at least acknowledge that the answer to your “who says it was well deserved” is “a shitload of high-profile Republicans”?
TWL
So they realized this when? The law just passed last Thursday. Did Maxine Waters wake up friday morning and realize it was all a horrible mistake?
Although the law was passed last Thursday, I’m assuming that it’s been in the making and in committees for quite some time now — well before Bush’s wiretap opinions came to light.
Your scenario, while comforting in that it confirms your world view, is unlikely. But easily proven–I can expect Nadler, Waters, etc to immediately announce a planned repeal…any…day…now.
I’m not sure what scenario you think I’m expecting and I don’t quite see how your example of proof confirms anything. You’re presuming to know what my worldview is. You do not. You also assume that I find comfort in something that confirms it. I do not necessary do.
IIRC, the administration took the authorization to use force in Afganistan as a permission slip to conduct the illegal wiretaps. That’s a bit of a non sequiter if I ever saw one and on that basis, it’s not unreasonable to believe they would use a similar get-there-from-here approach with this law. I do not really have a problem with the law as I (think I) understand it. Let’s just say that, in light of past actions of the current Executive branch, I would not be surprised if some dismaying news breaks that W. used it to justify something questionable.
Heh, maybe I am being too cynical. Well, “eternal vigilance” and all that . . . 🙂
The thing is that I hope I’m wrong and I hope the adminstration does the responsible thing and use the law for which it was obviously intended. The problem is this: When was the last time this administration has shown any unforced sense of responsibility?