From the New York Times: Why can’t George W. Bush just decide what the law is?
From today’s New York Times, in regards to the recent opinion given in the the ACLU v. National Security Agency case:
It is a serious argument, and judges need to take it seriously. If they do not, we ought to wonder why a court gets to decide what the law is and not the president. After all, the president has a sworn duty to uphold the Constitution; he has his advisers, and they’ve concluded that the program is legal. Why should the judicial view prevail over the president’s?
This was written by Ann Althouse .
Edit: Ok, I can admit I got overly hyped on that point. She was trying to make a point, and did so flailingly. However, my assessment was wrong. No apologies necessary, of course. Dear God, man, she’s a lawyer, and publicity-seeking one at that. Plus, her argument was inane and weak, as pointed out here.
So, by all means, I admit my error. I’m old-school that way and can admit to my foibles. But that doesn’t mean I need to have any type of respect for a law professor enamored with herself.
–WKW
August 23rd, 2006 at 5:29 pm
I’m confused by the edit. What are you admitting to?
August 23rd, 2006 at 5:49 pm
“I’m confused by the edit. What are you admitting to?”
That after going back to it I felt I took it [the italicized comment] too far out of context. She was trying to make a point in her ill-conceived, pandering, partisan opinion piece. So I don’t believe she was actually trying to make a case that the President should decide on laws and judges shouldn’t.
Though I do believe the whole piece was basically nob-gobbling in hopes that someone from Bushco would notice her.
–WKW
August 24th, 2006 at 5:22 am
“So I don’t believe she was actually trying to make a case that the President should decide on laws and judges shouldn’t.”
Then why did she put it out there?
Just another reminder that words have consequenses.
August 24th, 2006 at 5:54 am
Paul,
I don’t really disagree with you, and wrote as much on Glenn’s blog. I have a background as a journalist, and I think that was tugging at me to not get too hyperbolic by claiming she’s pro-dictatorship, which is basically what I did.
But that’s why I left the quote there and the headline the same. She put it ou there, the NYT ran it, for some unfathomable reason, and I’m sure there are plenty of people who read it and immediately thought: “Yeah, why can’t Bush make the laws?”
So basically, I backed off a bit to mollify myself more than anything. But the fact is, someone like Althouse obviously sees the Internet as a place to catapult them to some type of stardom. So what are slings and arrows directed at her are fair game, really, as she has thrust herself into the public realm. So she’s without recourse if anyone wants to blast her as an idealogue, which obviously I believe she is.
In the end, I guess I just want to keep a self-editor working at a time that I’m just aghast at what a small group of people have tried to make the U.S. into, and how well they’ve succeeded. The more any sensible person looks into the happenings at the top of the U.S., the more they just want to hurl expletives at all of them. I suppose I, like many of us are trying to learn a balancing act through it all.
Bill