The fun part will be when Obama (or a future President) uses the Unitary Executive to enforce environmental laws.

There is a bit of danger in that, though. The whole concept of unitary government is flawed. It's not OK just because you agree with the guy who would be wielding the power, or how the power would be used.

While I agree that it would be priceless to see the looks on their faces... it would ultimately be a bad thing.

Posted at June 26, 2008 2:18 PM in response to Addington: Unitary Government? Wha's That?

You are drawing the conclusion that the telecoms were breaking the law. Neither you nor I know that to be the case, and only a court could determine it.

It is a foregone conclusion. If it was really so unclear whether what they had done was illegal, it would not be the huge issue that it is. And there's plenty of documentation out there about the illegality of it under current statutes. On top of that, you can bet your ass that the telecoms had their entire team of lawyers look at it and determine that what they were doing was against the law, and that they went ahead with it in the face of that.

And the larger point I was making is that the telecoms are no different than you as an employ. If your company dumps waste products, do you think you should be held personally liable because you worked on the assembly line that created the waste products?

Answer to your question: No. Applicability to this situation: None.

If I worked for a company that dumped waste products and was ASKED to dump waste products, I would say no. This is pretty classic job interview crap here, you know- "what if your boss asked you to do something illegal" and I think we all know what the expected answer to that question is. Well, unless you work(ed) for Enron. Or AT&T, for that matter.

Hell, I can give you an even more applicable answer. I worked for a company where the owners decided they wanted to read people's email. They wanted to see all of the employees' work email, and here's the kicker- any personal email that was sent or received while using company computers. I flat out refused to do any of it, because I did not agree with it. Ultimately they scrapped the idea, but I would have given up my job over it... it was pretty crappy anyway. But that's my stand on issues that I feel strongly about.

Posted at June 25, 2008 8:42 PM in response to Obama On FISA: Telecom Immunity Issue Doesn't Override National Security

As a lawyer, I suppose you better than most, can understand the fallacy of arguing that because you were asked by someone to break the law that it somehow absolves you of the consequences. This establishes a dangerous precedent- that in the future, an action requested by the executive branch, no matter how patently unlawful it may be- can be excused.

Were there to be no immunity for the telecoms, it would certainly hurt them. I don't think anybody is going to argue that. It would, however, send the message that laws are not meant to be ignored when inconvenient.

Posted at June 25, 2008 6:40 PM in response to Obama On FISA: Telecom Immunity Issue Doesn't Override National Security

I think you're right. Why get him out of the campaign, and end his chances of saying something even more asinine?

Posted at June 25, 2008 4:11 PM in response to McCain In 2004: "Bin Laden May Have Just Given Us A Little Boost"

Too bad he's not a smoker any more. Oh, but wait... what's the spin on that? Let me give it a shot.

Yeah, that ex-smoker tag is truly a damning character flaw. Guess I better disown him for being a quitter. What a waffling flip-flopper. He's obviously not willing to stay the course.

Posted at June 23, 2008 3:27 PM in response to Rove: Obama Is The Type Of Guy Who Hangs Out At Country Clubs

It would be an interesting move if Obama really is "staging" his superdels to roll out exactly as many as she wins in WV / KY right after each primary. She picks up 17 in WV? He rolls out 17. That would be a bit over the top, but it would be pretty funny to see, nonetheless.

I don't really buy the argument that they have all this support lined up that they're feeding out piecemeal, anyway... I'm sure it is true to a degree, but not to the extent that it's been hyped up.

Posted at May 13, 2008 12:27 PM in response to Obama Gets Four More Super-Delegates

Wow!! What a troll tour de force. I dont ever think ive seen such a masterful blend of anti-americanism and racism before. Where's trollcritic when you need him?

You sir, are a master of your craft. That craft is blinding ignorance, but you went with it! Way to stay the course, champ.

Posted at May 13, 2008 12:15 PM in response to Pledged Delegate For Hillary Switches To Obama

Ah, nice pidgeonhole, chief chickenhead. I never said that. It's just the first time you've started framing your trolls with that tinge of an inevitable Obama nomination, that's all.

Posted at May 7, 2008 5:16 PM in response to Hillary Super-Delegate Defects To Obama

I think this is a watershed moment, actually. It's the first time the trolls are starting to accept the inevitable here, and changing their posture to the clinton-era dittohead bitching about the status quo.

Posted at May 7, 2008 4:34 PM in response to Hillary Super-Delegate Defects To Obama

It seems apropos to pull out this quote again:

"One of Clinton's laws of politics is, if one candidate is trying to scare you, and the other one is trying to make you think, if one candidate's appealing to your fears, and the other one's appealing to your hopes. You better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope." - Bill Clinton, October 2004

Posted at May 2, 2008 6:14 PM in response to Hillary Airs Another Indiana Ad Hitting Obama On Gas Tax