How To Do Things With Rules
It’s to the brink on the Alito nomination, which, if successful, has the potential to overturn the constitution and the rule of law in the US, and that’s without any hyperbole.
The left has always had an ambiguous relationship with the law: on one hand it’s the instrument with which those in power oppress those who aren’t, and on the other it is the last bulwark of liberty, truth and justice for all.
A large swathe of the US liberal left leans towards the latter view – unsurprisng in a generation brought up to revere Felix Frankfurter, FDR, The New Deal, MLK and JFK – but anyone who’s ever studied or worked in the law knows that the law, in practice, is an exercise in getting round the rules by interpretation. In itself it’s not good or decent or even just. It’s what you do with it that counts. Which is why it’s no use expecting the Bush administration ( or Blair for that matter, who is himself a lawyer ) to play by the rules.
The Daily Brew has no time for any of these weak sisters:
The Daily Brew
? January 27, 2006
First PrinciplesEver since Glenn Greenwald pointed out that Bush opposed legislation in 2002 that would have allowed him to wiretap US citizens without a warrant, the left has scratched their heads and wondered why. Why would he oppose such a law, and then go out and deliberately break it? Wouldn?t it have been easier to simply make it legal? The answer is pretty obvious, if you just make the right assumptions.
First, you have to stop giving Bush the benefit of the doubt. Liberals have the disturbing tendency to project their own basic decency on others, and that blinds them to the truly evil nature of the GOP. Don?t assume Bush is decent, honest, or has good intentions. He isn?t, he wasn?t, and he doesn?t. Instead, let the evidence be your guide. Assume Bush is equal parts messianic complex, pathological liar, and paranoid power monger.
Now ask yourself, why would Bush oppose a law which would give future Presidents the ability to listen in on telephone conversations without a court knowing? The question kind of answers itself, doesn?t it? Bush opposed the law because he didn?t want that surveillance capability to ever be used against him. Projecting his fundamental evilness on his enemies, Bush surely assumed that if they ever had the chance, the Democrats would spy on him. So the solution is simple. Keep the law on the books, but break it, and claim the Divine Right of Kings if caught. It was simply another one of the many rules that are meant for other people.
Bush is certainly listening in on the Democrats. Sadly, I know at least half the people who read this are going to argue with this assumption. My response is, how can anyone be so na?ve as to believe that Bush deliberately broke the law and circumvented the judiciary to spy on American citizens, but still assume that he was so honest that he wouldn?t spy on the very American citizens who happened to be his political enemies?
How many times do you have to have your nose rubbed in it before you believe Bush crapped on the carpet? Bush?s core operating assumption is that he is not only above the law, but exempt from the consequences of any of his actions. Bush has lived an entire lifetime in which that basic assumption has always held true. Walk away from the Texas Air National Guard? No problem, here is your honorable discharge. Fail at business after business? Not an issue, here is a ten percent interest in a Major League Baseball team. Start an unwinnable war based on a pack of lies? No consequences, have a second term.
With a lifetime of Bush?s reckless and unpunished behavior in front of us, how can anyone doubt that Bush believes he is above all accountability? At the same time, with federal prosecutors drawing ever closer to the White House in a dozen different investigations, how can anyone doubt that he is terrified that someday his good fortune may run out?
The reason Bush deliberately kept the law on the books is because he wanted to tie the hands of anyone who follows him is office. The reason he broke it is in equal parts because he didn?t think he would get caught, and even if he did, he thought he would get away with it.
Anyone who thinks that the US government isn’t spying on opponents and dissidents is an idiot. That means all the elected Democrat representatives are being spied on. Who knows what the NSA has on them? Given the nature of past political scandals, it would probably make Mark Oaten’s recent difficulties look like an upset at the vicarage tea party. No wonder the Democrats are loth to support the filibuster.
Why do I care so much about stopping Alito? I’m not a US citizen, why should I care?
Three main reasons: paramount of which is that the world has quite enough dictators already, thanks, and we don’t need Alito enabling another world war. Doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.
The seoond is that my family are US citizens, and I’d like them to be proud of their heritage and not have to hide it or hang their heads in shame. That doesn’t seem unreasonable either.
Third is that I’m a woman and Alito is an enemy of women everywhere. And I don’t give a fuck if that’s reasonable or not.
