Info Gluttony

The Good Old Days

Posted in politics by echan on July 10, 2008

Okay, someone needs to re-explain the concept of political capital to me. If our current President is a lame duck, and the Senate is controlled by the Dems, why did the Senate just pass the FISA bill? Part of me wants to cancel my AT&T contract in protest, iPhone be damned.

Advertisements

5 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. ToastyKen said, on July 11, 2008 at 10:23 am

    The argument I read was that the Dems were afraid that if they opposed it, the Republicans would use it as ammo against them in the fall elections.

    Or who knows. Maybe they’re just in the pockets of the telcos? 😛

  2. ToastyKen said, on July 11, 2008 at 10:41 am

    Btw, it should be possible to challenge this in court on Fourth Amendment grounds, right? Any word on what the Justices’ stance on it might be?

    Of course, it may well have some of the issues national security letter challenges had, where you can’t sue if you can’t show that you’ve specifically been monitored, but you can’t find out if you’ve been monitored because that’s secret… and even if you DO find out that you’ve been monitored, that’s inadmissible in court. Wee.

    Hopefully this new law is more challengeable?

  3. ToastyKen said, on July 11, 2008 at 11:33 pm

    Ah, the ACLU has sued, and they’re hoping it’ll go better than last time. Relevant paragraph:

    ‘The ACLU has tried this approach before, however, and has been rebuffed by the court. The group won an initial victory in a 2006 suit over warrantless NSA surveillance, but that ruling was overturned by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the purported chiling effect was too inchoate to ground a claim of standing. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case. But Jaffer believes that this time, things will be different. He notes that the present suit concerns a public statute, rather than a covert program, attenuating barriers to litigation posed by the state secrets privilege. Jaffer also argues that the Sixth Circuit ruling, on a 2–1 vote, runs contrary to other jurisprudence on standing, and that another court might well be disposed to rule differently.’

  4. dannebrog said, on July 28, 2008 at 9:09 am

    the answer can be found by looking at the sponsorship list for the dem’s convention in august.

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/20/dnc/

    as others have noted, we were sold out for a tote bag.

  5. dannebrog said, on August 28, 2008 at 2:46 pm

    and also? this..

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/27/161218/832/998/576660

    how nice. a dnc party for the spineless, turncoat blue dogs.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: