In Warrantless Wiretapping Case, Obama DOJ's New Arguments Are Worse Than Bush's

[ProSense]

April 7th, 2009

In Warrantless Wiretapping Case, Obama DOJ's New Arguments Are Worse Than Bush's

Commentary by Tim Jones

We had hoped this would go differently.

Friday evening, in a motion to dismiss Jewel v. NSA, EFF's litigation against the National Security Agency for the warrantless wiretapping of countless Americans, the Obama Administration's made two deeply troubling arguments.

First, they argued, exactly as the Bush Administration did on countless occasions, that the state secrets privilege requires the court to dismiss the issue out of hand. They argue that simply allowing the case to continue "would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security." As in the past, this is a blatant ploy to dismiss the litigation without allowing the courts to consider the evidence.

It's an especially disappointing argument to hear from the Obama Administration. As a candidate, Senator Obama lamented that the Bush Administration "invoked a legal tool known as the 'state secrets' privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court." He was right then, and we're dismayed that he and his team seem to have forgotten.

Sad as that is, it's the Department Of Justice's second argument that is the most pernicious. The DOJ claims that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying — that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes.

This is a radical assertion that is utterly unprecedented. No one — not the White House, not the Justice Department, not any member of Congress, and not the Bush Administration — has ever interpreted the law this way.

Previously, the Bush Administration has argued that the U.S. possesses "sovereign immunity" from suit for conducting electronic surveillance that violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). However, FISA is only one of several laws that restrict the government's ability to wiretap. The Obama Administration goes two steps further than Bush did, and claims that the US PATRIOT Act also renders the U.S. immune from suit under the two remaining key federal surveillance laws: the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act. Essentially, the Obama Adminstration has claimed that the government cannot be held accountable for illegal surveillance under any federal statutes.

Again, the gulf between Candidate Obama and President Obama is striking. As a candidate, Obama ran promising a new era of government transparency and accountability, an end to the Bush DOJ's radical theories of executive power, and reform of the PATRIOT Act. But, this week, Obama's own Department Of Justice has argued that, under the PATRIOT Act, the government shall be entirely unaccountable for surveilling Americans in violation of its own laws.

This isn't change we can believe in. This is change for the worse.

For further reading, we suggest Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald and The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder.

Related Issues: NSA Spying

Related Cases: Jewel v. NSA

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Agreed.

K&R

[Cali_Democrat]

2. This is very disturbing

nt

[SemiCharmedQuark]

3. REC.

[pleah]

4. K&R

[CTLawGuy]

5. on the bright side

the judge will decide what the law is, that's what a judge does. That is the beauty of our system of separated powers.

[quiller4]

38. Frankly I think they have deliberately crafted a losing argument

Then the judge will rule against them. They make their nervous friends in the CIA happy, the courts set things aright. It is the kind of startegy that two law school professors would craft.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

39. subtle. very subtle, if true.

[leveymg]

41. That's a clever, hopeful take on this. What's your read on how the Judge will rule?

On what basis do you think he'll deny the Motion To Dismiss?

[quiller4]

70. He'll reject the "states secrets" argument as an unconstitutional

expansion of exuctive power.

[ChiciB1]

6. Been POSTING At Every Thread About This... This Is An OUTRAGE!!

And even here on DU many are calling those of us who ARE outraged some kind of Obama haters! For me it's not about hating anyone, it's about "DOING THE RIGHT THING!"

Looking the other way and hoping CONGRESS will pick up the ball IS NOT LEADERSHIP to me. Sorry, and I AM really sorry to have said that! Truth often DOES hurt!

[Berry Cool]

11. No, you're right about this. This is wrong.

And something needs to be done about it.

[ChiciB1]

12. I WISH I Knew What That "Something" Is, I KNOW I'm Feeling Really Weird Though! n/t

[debbierlus]

25. What is more of an outrage are the 'liberal/progressives' defending this indefensible policy

DU seems to have split since Obama's election.

The hero worshippers are starting to frighten me almost as much as the Bushbots.

[lumberjack_jeff]

27. You find this a surprise? A new phenomenon?

The idolatry has been on prominent display for nearly two years now.

He's in a position to do a number of really good things:

• end the war
  
• reinstate our civil rights
  
• fix this economy, not simply ad more cards to the house
  
• fix healthcare

Every move he's made so far suggests (at best) a superficial level of intent.

I'm of the belief that "God, fate, destiny and providence" have a really punitive sense of humor.

[ChiciB1]

32. AGREED... To Simply "Get On Board" Because He's A Democrat

is no better than Repukes and their IDOLATRY of BUSH/CHENEY!!!

[whistler162]

55. So if the President doesn't like a law

it is okay for him to direct the DOJ to not do their job defending that law?

Seems like we have been through that a few time!

If the law is not good Congress MUST over turn it.

[earth mom]

34. I'm outraged by all of it. The bank fraud, the endless war, the wiretapping, the faith based office

etc., etc., etc!

It feels like Deja Vu to me yet people are telling me I'm a hater, I'm bitter and whatever the fuck else they can dream up to smear me with.

They can't handle the truth so they trash the messenger.

Whatever.

Sorry, but I wasn't born yesterday and I know what the hell fraud, lies and bullshit looks like.

And we are looking at it and it is disgusting and not what I'd call hope and change. Not by a long shot. :grr:

[freemarketer6]

44. Copy that, Earth Mom. I'm beside myself with rage. We need

someone on the board to start putting everything together to determine whether we are being overtly lied to for a reason, and is that reason nascent fascism of some kind. I'm too old to do it. We need one of the board analysts.

[mvd]

46. Do you think he should fire the attorneys now?

I'm for it if possible, because this is an unconstitutional program. But would they be required to argue the case with new appointments anyway?

[freemarketer6]

51. I don't know. It's beyond me. I'll ask one of the attornies if I

see one.

[treestar]

42. But if they don't argue it and the courts don't strike it down

There is no precedent and a future repuke administration can just go back to where bush was.

But if the courts rule against the Bush policy, there is precedent against it.

The courts aren't likely to uphold these Bush era interpretations. Even while Bush was in office they didn't. Better to get the rulings and the precedent rather than just quit the lawsuits and leave things as they were.

It is the Chimpadministration that even dared to advance these horribly unconstitutional claims as constitutional. They're the ones that left the Obama Administration in this mess.

[napoleon_in_rags]

7. Who didn't see that coming though.

The genie is out of the bottle. I remember during the NSA spying scandal, the scandal was that the NSA had a room in...I think it was AT&T.. where they could observe signals as they came through. Nobody talked about the fact that AT&T *themselves* could obverse the same signals coming through, which alarmed me. The scandal was that the government had as much power as a corporation in that case. The point is, if the technology is out there, just because the government is not watching doesn't mean you're not being watched.

[slipslidingaway]

8. Professor Turley "a breathtaking expansion of sovereign immunity"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7uomucNU8E

[biopowertoday]

22. Yes, that was a good segment of the show.

[PuppyBismark]

9. Change I Cannot Belive In!

I just posted a note at the WH. I did NOT vote for reduction in my privacy. I did not vote to let Bush and his henchman get off scott free!

Where is the DU on this? This is an outrage!!

:grr: :grr: :grr:

[Supersedeas]

16. They got to him --- real change --- maybe Holder was right....we are a Nation of Cowards

[glitch]

10. Damn. nt

[emilyg]

13. k/r

[jillan]

14. I don't understand why bushco is going to get away with this.

:banghead:

[TBF]

26. It's not just bushco - it's worse. Obama is giving himself unprecedented power.

FISA is the thing that stopped me in my tracks last June. Up until that point I had donated hundreds of $$$, hours of phone calls & walking about the neighborhoods for Obama. I stopped that support when he voted to uphold FISA and give telecoms immunity. Everyone still voted for him, as I did, because (a) we had no choice - who would put Palin near the white house? and (b) some believed him when he said he would "fix" this after he got elected.

DU does not dig this "fix", and the important thing we're seeing on DU the last couple days is that some of Obama's most fervent supporters know it's wrong. They are posting their concerns about destroying the 4th amendment. He has rolled over his entire base this time. Where the hell is he planning to take that bus anyway? That is what we need to be asking.

ETA - Just editing to thank "prosense" for writing this OP. She has indeed been one of Obama's vocal supporters, and it had to have really hurt her to be writing this. Some of us feared Obama would do this, but noone likes it, and for some it has to be devastating.

[earth mom]

66. Your post should be an OP. The truth needs to be faced whether some can deal with it or not. nt

[Krashkopf]

15. Restoring the Constitution was my NUMBER 1 issue before the elections . . .

And it is my NUMBER 1 issue now.

My support of the President is DIRECTLY proportional to HIS support for the CONSTITUTION.

This is NOT the Change I voted for.

[freemarketer6]

45. My sentiments exactly. And I will take to the streets with it, pitchfork

in hand.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. Not just as bad as Bush, but worse?

Oy vey.

:rofl:

[Skip Intro]

18. ProSense - I think I may owe you an apology.

Back in the primary days here, you seemed to me to be someone who was here with the only purpose to promote Obama.

Believe me, now that he is our president, I wish there weren't things such as this for you to post about. I wish it were not so. It is more than disturbing. Were it the bush admin making such arguments, we'd all be up in arms over it.

But to see you post this. I haven't been on DU, let alone in GDP, frequently since the election. Maybe I missed something, but to see you post this - either I have been wrong in regards to you for some time or there has been some change.

At this point, while we traded virtual blows at each other then, I think I have to say I'm sorry. I think I was wrong about you.

I never thought I'd see such a thread about a president Obama, and I never thought I'd write such a reply.

Wtf is really going on?

[Median Democrat]

19. Direct Link To The Motion To Dismiss

The actual motion itself is worth reading. It will be interesting to read the opposition brief.

http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/jewel/jewelmtdobama.pdf

[biopowertoday]

20. Olbermann, Turley and Finemann highly critical of this this---discussed here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jSUHVUgJFc

[sampsonblk]

21. Obama is way wrong on this one

I strongly disagree with him on this issue.

[biopowertoday]

23. The Gov is claiming immunity for any and ALL federal surveillance laws. WHOW--it is

indeed an expansion.


...........Responding to a lawsuit filed by a civil liberties group, the Justice Department argued that the government was protected by "sovereign immunity" from lawsuits because of a little-noticed clause in the Patriot Act. The government's legal filing can be read here (PDF).

For the first time, the Obama Administration's brief contends that government agencies cannot be sued for wiretapping American citizens even if there was intentional violation of US law. They maintain that the government can only be sued if the wiretaps involve "willful disclosure" -- a higher legal bar.

"A 'willful violation' in Section 223(c(1) refers to the 'willful disclosure' of intelligence information by government agents, as described in Section 223(a)(3) and (b)(3), and such disclosures by the Government are the only actions that create liability against the United States," Obama Assistant Attorney General Michael Hertz wrote (page 5).

Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is suing the government over the warrantless wiretapping program, notes that the government has previously argued that the government had "sovereign immunity" against civil action under the FISA statute. But he says that this is the first time that they've invoked changes to the Patriot Act in claiming the US government is immune from claims of illegal spying under any other federal surveillance statute.....................


http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_Administration_quietly_expands_Bushs_legal_0407.html

[Celeborn Skywalker]

24. Damn.

This really sucks. WTF is going on with President Obama? Is he actually corrupt or is he being threatened? Even if it is the latter, he has the duty to show a spine and not back down from them.

[Keno76]

28. Very Disturbing

Very disturbing indeed.

[Vidar]

29. Ageed & recommended.

[berni_mccoy]

30. So Says the Plaintiff. DUH.

[SeaLyons]

31. Why?? Why is Obama taking this stance??? Damnit!!! n/t

[acmavm]

33. Problem is that people were listening to his pretty speeches and

not looking at his record.

I am totally amazed at how many people didn't see that this guy is NOT a lib, is NOT a progressive.

He has way more in common with the Blue Dog Dems than he has the rest of us.

[stevenleser]

58. Oh give it a rest.

Geez.

[acmavm]

61. No. Go read a fashion thread.

[karynnj]

60. Question - whose record was better - if you are going by records not "pretty speeches"?

Hillary's record was similar but a bit to the right. Edwards' RECORD was to the right of both. Biden, who generated no real interest was a centrist Democrat as well. Those were the choices.

In 2004 going by records Dean was a moderate Democrat. Kerry, by record was the most progressive viable candidate in the last 2 election cycles - and to the left of Gore the first DLC endorsed candidate and Bill Clinton.

[paulk]

62. Hillary's voting record was to the left of Obama's

when Obama bothered to vote

I'm not interested in refighting the primaries

but I am sick and tired of this lie being repeated

this information was freely available from sites like progressive punch, project votesmart, etc.

http://www.progressivepunch.org/
http://www.bythefault.com/2008/05/30/progressive-punch-rates-the-candidates/

but so many were caught up in a hysterical hatred of HRC

that they refused to pay attention to anything that didn't fit their preconceptions

[karynnj]

63. Hillary's and Obama's were very similar

on social issues - both very liberal but Hillary was to the right on foreign policy and economic issues. Because of votes like hers against banning cluster bombs and for the Kyl/Lieberman amendment.

"Barack Obama of Illinois had the most liberal voting record in 2006. He was more liberal than 86 percent of the Senate. Chris Dodd of Connecticut was close behind - achieving a mark of 84 percent more liberal. Joe Biden of Delaware rated 77.5 percent. Hillary Clinton of New York had the lowest overall liberal score in 2006, clocking in 70.2 percent."

Note this means that overall 13 Democratic Senators were more liberal than Obama, and 31 less liberal.

They also have a paragraph that better explains where HRC was:
"Clinton's liberal streak is most evident on social votes where her 80 percent score in 2006 ranks only behind Dodd's 93 percent. She ranks least liberal among the four Democratic senators running for president on economic (63 percent) and foreign (62 percent) issues."


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/03/mirror_mirror_on_the_wall_whos.html

2006 is a fair year to use because both were still regularly voting. (You might note that in 2006, there were 55 Republicans - a score (read the article)of 62 means that she was the 38th most liberal person in the Senate on foreign policy issues - with 37 more liberal Democrats and just 7 Democrats less liberal than she was. But, as the link notes - her lifetime rankings place her between Dodd and Biden - with all three numbers close - in the high 70s - in the middle of the Democratic party.

I resent that you are saying that I wrote what I did out of irrational hatred of HRC. The fact is that she is

As I said - they were CLOSE - I did not say that she was right wing while he was a liberal savior. In addition, Obama and Hillary BOTH missed votes when campaigning. (The biggest difference being that Obama had cast fewer votes before he started campaigning heavily - ANY serious candidate for President who is a Senator will miss votes - there is no other way to run and votes can't be cast remotely.

I have always had a problem with Progressive Punch's charts - because they disagree with nearly every other sources - so I suspect that the votes they use are weird.

[AtomicKitten]

65. great analysis

I appreciate you taking the time to patiently explain this, although the facts are summarily dismissed here by some as biased and an assault. This bogus claim has been made before and I expect will again.

[politicasista]

68. Yes, that is n/t

[karynnj]

72. Thank you for the compliment

The funny thing is that HRC likely intentionally positioned herself as more conservative than she really was. When the electorate shifted strongly to the left in late 2006 - at least on foreign affairs - she struggled to re-position herself. (In fairness - Obama shifted his position as well but he had been less visible and less strident in opposing Kerry/Feingold - and he voted for banning cluster bomb sales and against Kyl/Lieberman. Those three votes were to me the most significant foreign policy votes from 2005 to 2008 and IMHO HRC was wrong on all 3.)

[AtomicKitten]

75. Here are some more stats:

Interesting pre-election data. Close as you say but with some notable exceptions.

I also agree that nobody that is happy with the primary election results is interested in re-litigating the outcome but feel compelled to correct some of the, um, more creative interpretations of data.

Cheers. :)

Liberal Ranking for 2007 (National Journal)
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

Hillary Clinton (82.8, 16th place)

Barack Obama (95.5, 1st place)

***

Civil Rights Report Card for 2006(NAACP):
http://cnnvsfox.blogspot.com/2008/02/clinton-vs-obama-vs-mccain-voting.html

Hillary Clinton (96%, A)

Barack Obama (100%, A)

John McCain (7%, F)



***

Civil Liberties for 110th Congress (ACLU):
http://action.aclu.org/site/VoteCenter?page=congScorecard

Hillary Clinton (67%, 35th)

Barack Obama (88%, 20th)

John McCain (17%, 82nd)

***

Environment for 109th Congress (League of Conservation Voters)
http://www.lcv.org/scorecard/

Hillary Clinton (89%, tied for 17th)

Barack Obama (96%, tied for 3rd)

John McCain (41%, tied for 44th)

***

Family for 109th Congress (2nd session) (Family Research Council and Focus on the Family)
http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.naacp.org%2Fpdfs%2F109th_final_report_card3.pdf&images=yes

Hillary Clinton (0%, tied for last)

Barack Obama (0%, tied for last)

John McCain (62%, tied for 36th)

***

Darfur for 2006/2007 (Genocide Intervention Network)
http://www.darfurscores.org/darfur-legislation#senate

Hillary Clinton (A+/A)

Barack Obama (A+/A)

John McCain (B/C)

***

High Tech for 110th session (Computer and Communications Industry Association)
http://community.techpolicycentral.com/_CCIA-Scores-110TH-More-Tech-Friendly/blog/24194/11451.html

Hillary Clinton (79%)

Barack Obama (86%)

John McCain (64%)



***

Abortion for 109th session (National Right to Life Committee)
http://capwiz.com/nrlc/scorecard.xc?chamber=S&state=US&session=109&x=13&y=11

Hillary Clinton (0%)

Barack Obama (0%)

John McCain (75%)

***

GLBT Equality for 109th session (Human Rights Campaign)
http://cnnvsfox.blogspot.com/2008/02/clinton-vs-obama-vs-mccain-voting.html

Hillary Clinton (89%)

Barack Obama (89%)

John McCain (33%)

***

Latino Civil Rights for 108th session (National Council of La Raza)
http://www.nclr.org/content/publications/detail/36116/

Hillary Clinton (100%)

Barack Obama (prior to his election to the Senate)

John McCain (67%)

[jesus_of_suburbia]

78. That's why I was shocked that Sen Obama voted for FISA when Sen Clinton voted against it!

[politicasista]

69. No one is refighting the primaries

Not karynnj. And there is not hatred of HRC in her thread. This is just about setting the record straight.

[karynnj]

71. Thanks for the support

I really don't get HRC supporters accusing Obama supporters of "refighting the primaries". As we like the way they came out - why would we want to re-fight them? That just doesn't make sense - we LIKED the results!

[politicasista]

73. You're welcome

I don't like that either. If we are going to re-fighting the 08 primaries, we might as well re-fight 04, and 00 all over again. I agree, it is time to move on.

Yes, We liked the end results. That's the point! :hi:

[paulk]

74. except that the record didn't get set straight

Don't you think it's at least interesting that she cites Kyle/Lieberman as a foreign policy difference, a bill that Obama didn't even vote on?

Oh, wait - he said he would have voted against it.

Well, if the OP of this thread is any indication, what Obama says and what he does can be two different things...



ProgressivePunch is a non-partisan searchable database of Congressional voting records from a Progressive perspective. True blue Democrats won’t be surprised that Clinton ranked as more progressive than Obama. The rank represents their rank among their Senate colleagues.

Category/Issue HRC Score HRC Rank BHO Score BHO Rank
Corporate Subsidies 100 1 77.71 28
Education & The Arts 90.91 37 85.71 42
Environment 92.21 20 94.44 16
Taxation 96.92 13 93.10 31
Family Planning 87.50 33 80.00 40
Checks on Corporate Power 96.75 7 91.18 18
Health Care 98.96 12 92.86 31
Housing 100 1 100 1
Human Rights/Civil Liberties 87.93 25 75.00 41
Justice/Criminal Law 93.90 19 87.85 26

Labor Rights 91.55 20 91.67 17
Making Govt. Work 94.41 15 87.32 33
War & Peace 85.37 34 88.26 28
OVERALL 91.11 20 88.54 25
Source: ProgressPunch.org

and of course the easiest argument in the world is to deny the source as credible.

[politicasista]

76. But also..

you said that what she posted is justifying irrational hatred of HRC. I didn't read "I hate HRC" in her comment. She was responding to the poster that described how Obama's supporters were "too busy listening to his pretty speeches" to check his actual record. That reinforces that line that Obama was all style, cult mentality and no substance.

We don't know how all this will turn out, but we should be happy with the end result. It's ok to disagree with PO. There are always those who won't let 08 primaries go, but no one here is re-fighting 08, not karynnj.

[karynnj]

79. I cited that bill as it was important because it was.

The Obama's position had he voted was also not in doubt - Obama indicated that had he been there he would have voted against it before the vote. The passage of the bill was not in dought either - as Reid told Obama. Obama had headed to NH when Reid said they were not close to a vote. He attended a campaign event - then one of the primary votes. Hillary voted YES.

As to progressive punch - there is something wrong with their methodology that they place about 10 senators before Kennedy and somehow put Bill Nelson ahead of Kerry. Now, I know where Kerry's rankings were before 2004 and I KNOW that Bill Nelson, not Kerry, is one of the senators who is a problem on many many votes. Frankly - as a statistician I know that if a result looks wrong - the problem can be the method. I suspect that they count a not voting as a wrong vote - which will distort the results of any serious Presidential candidate. (Obama with the shorter voting history has his percent more distorted by this. Also comparing "lifetime averages" for people with different lengths of service has problems.)

Look at the scales by KNOWN interest groups in Atomic Kitten's post. Obama is higher on nearly every issue. I don't think ANY scale is perfect - but the way National Journal looked at social, economy and foreign policy makes sense to me. The fact is that on foreign policy, until she started campaigning in 2007 - her positions was closer to Evan Bayh's than to the liberal wing. She (and Bill) did not want the Democrats to have an alternative plan in 2006 and were furious that Kerry and Feingold raised the issue. What bothers me was that the reason was that they thought (incorrectly) that that would be better politically in the US.

[mvd]

35. But these are Bush appointees making the argument

As DUer Beetwasher says. Based on his post, maybe it would be best for Obama to fire these attorneys after the case has made its way through the courts. I'm still wary, of course - we don't know Obama's personal thoughts.

[OwnedByFerrets]

37. We await his thoughts on this. Anxiously.

[JuniperLea]

47. Me too... eom

[elleng]

36. Haven't we noted

that this administration is REQUIRED to defend this case?

And if it loses, and the courts disagree with the arguments that Tim Jones, Glenn Greenwald, Jonathan Turley and others find so disagreeable, who wins???

[LittleBlue]

40. I feel sick. What a joke.

This is a major campaign promise, and now he's reversing course.

Even Olbermann seems exasperated.

[jimmyflint]

43. This must be a mistake

President Obama speficaly mentioned he was against this as a cannidate, not for expanding it.
I hope Obama is unaware of this, and will fire those at DOJ who are involved, when he learns of it.



This is not the kind of change I was hoping for!

[shagsak]

48. It apears that the referenced article is a little biased - first of all

Maybe it's just me, but last I checked Obama wasn't (still) a lawyer, nor is he the only one represented by the DOJ in this particular case, nor has he come forward publicly and supported wiretapping. It's all conjecture at this point IMO - until PROVEN otherwise.

I see everyone on here has more than 1000 posts, which should mean DU veterans I can count on to be objective and give the whole story, or poke holes in the bullshit. Hopefully you are all wrong in jumping to this conclusion that Obama is the same as Bush.

Regardless, I am not going to jump on the "Fuck Obama" bandwagon just yet. I'm going to let this one play out and see where it goes. Something tells me there's more to this than meets the eye.

[Supersedeas]

50. Obama is a lawyer, a Professor of Law, and voted in the Senate regarding wiretapping

There's facts and there's cheerleading

[shagsak]

53. I meant in this case

Sure he's educated in law, but the lawyer occupation is not his responsibility in this case. Unless he was representing himself.

[graywarrior]

52. .

:thumbsup:

[antimatter98]

49. Obama is enabling fascism in the US. n/t

[aquamarina]

54. Any chance they are trying to lose this case on purpose?

If so, it would certainly shut the door on future abuses.

[baldguy]

56. If that was true then Holder would be setting himself up for impeachment

And Obama too, if he knew.

[pam4water]

57. K & R and :(

[stevenleser]

59. I'm betting that Obama didn't know the arguments that were going to be made here.

I think we have overzealous DOJ attorneys arguing the case.

Anyone know what the upshot is if the government loses the case here?

[biopowertoday]

77. you would lose your bet. And it would be shamefule if Obama did

not know what his own DOJ was doing. !!

[cherokeeprogressive]

64. Change we can believe in? I get more change from my couch. n/t

[politicasista]

67. Yikes n/t

:(