Items!Prohibition was repealed 75 years ago today. Too bad this anniversary occurs on a Friday,[...]
Read The Full Article:
I was at Cato earlier today to talk health care. Some folks might be interested in the notes from the chat. People with too much time on their hands can watch the video:Why did I think I'd be here to point out the system's flaws while a conservative[...]
Read The Full Article:
So, I'm wondering today where comprehensive immigration reform falls out on president-elect Obama's[...]
Read The Full Article:
U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker had a busy week, hearing from lawyers for EFF arguing against telco amnesty and from lawyers in Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v. Bush, who are suing the government for warrantless electronic surveillance.
To recap, EFF is representing the plaintiffs in Hepting v. AT&T, a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of millions of AT&T customers whose records were illegally handed over to the NSA in the warrantless wiretapping program. All of the 46 outstanding lawsuits against the telcos have basically been consolidated in this case, with EFF and co-coordinating counsel along with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). At issue now is whether the FISA Amendments Act passed by Congress this summer is Constitutional.
The Al-Haramain case gets at the warrantless wiretapping from another angle. Al-Haramain is an Islamic charity organization in Oregon that was under investigation for possible links to terrorism. Based in part on information obtained through illegal surveillance, the Bush Treasury Department shut Al-Haramain down. At the time, however, the organization's lawyers didn't know about the surveillance, that was revealed when the government accidentally released a highly classified document to Al-Haramain's attorneys. The arguments Walker heard this week were about whether his case against the government could go forward, and with what evidence.
Back to this week's action. On the telco amnesty front, the EFF's lawyers argued that
the flawed FISA Amendments Act (FAA) improperly attempts to take away Americans' claims arising out of the First and Fourth Amendments, violates the federal government's separation of powers as established in the Constitution, and robs innocent telecom customers of their rights without due process of law. Signed by President Bush earlier this year, the FAA allows for the dismissal of the lawsuits over the telecoms' participation in the warrantless surveillance program if the government secretly certifies to the court that the surveillance did not occur, was legal, or was authorized by the president. Attorney General Michael Mukasey filed that classified certification with the court in September and is demanding that the cases be dismissed.
That's a tough case for EFF to make. While Walker seemed skeptical about the new law:
Still, Walker was concerned that the immunity law, which also authorized continuing the admitted eavesdropping, gives the attorney general too much power.
"It gives the attorney general carte blanche to immunize anyone who in his judgment or view should be immunized from possible liability," Walker said from the bench.
he suggested that the remedy for EFF wasn't in his court:
"What we've seen is that this is an administration that has boasted that ... it's not bound by the other branches in conducting surveillance," said Richard Wiebe, a San Francisco solo representing the plaintiffs.
But that argument should have been made to Congress, Walker said.
"Congress made a determination that [suing the companies] is not in the national interest and gave us this statute," he said. "I'm the wrong person to be making that argument to; call up Sen. [Dianne] Feinstein."
Walker did express concern with what he called the "awfully broad" latitude the act gives to the attorney general.
Under the new law, courts must dismiss suits against telecommunications companies if the attorney general issues a special certification letter. But Walker can overrule the letter submitted in the Hepting case if he finds that it is not supported by "substantial evidence," a burden for which he sought clarification from the attorneys.
In determining what constitutes "substantial evidence," EFF's lawyers argued for another hearing or adversarial proceeding, while the DOJ said Walker should make that determination in discussions just with the government. Walker is seemingly skeptical enough of the DOJ's position to rely soley on their arguments, so EFF could have another shot at convincing him.
The Al-Haramain case might have more promise. Walker has previously ruled on Al-Haramain in July, when he dismissed the case in because of a catch-22--lawyers had received classified information that they had been wiretapped illegally by the government, but couldn't use the information they had to prove it in court. However, Walker ruled that the Al-Haramain could refile the complaint if they could provide nonclassified evidence. They made their case:
"First, the FBI was investigating the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation in 2004, FBI agent Gary Bald testified to that in public; next, the FBI used warrantless surveillance ... in pursuit of their goals, Director [Robert] Mueller testified to that before Congress; next, in February 2004, the Department of the Treasury issued its initial designation of Al-Haramain [as subject to an asset freeze]," Eisenberg said.
That initial designation did not mention Osama bin Laden, he said, so the fact that the Treasury alleged "direct links" to the al-Qaida mastermind later that year is circumstantial evidence that the government listened in on calls between Al-Haramain's lawyers and foreign nationals that mentioned bin Laden.
Coppolino countered that Al-Haramain still lacked "the most fundamental element of proof," which only the government could reveal.
But Walker seemed inclined to let the public evidence stand as proof, asking Eisenberg to lay out how the case would proceed if he granted Al-Haramain "aggrieved" status.
"It's quite conceivable that information that would otherwise be shielded under the state secrets privilege would be disclosed if FISA pre-empts," Walker said.
Ultimately, Walker is unlikely to rule on these cases before Bush leaves office, leaving the unknown question hanging: what will Obama's Justice Department do if he rules against the government in either case? The Bush DOJ asserts they'll do just like the Bush DOJ:
"We are going to have new attorney general," Walker interjected in Tuesday morning's hearing in a San Francisco courthouse. "Why shouldn't the court wait to see what the new attorney general will do?"...
"The Department of Justice rarely, if ever, declines to defend the constitutionality of a statute," Nichols said. "It's very, very unlikely for a future DOJ to decline to defend the constitutionality of this statute."
Eric Holder, the attorney general to be, might have different ideas. He has denounced the illegal surveillance program, but President-elect Obama voted for the potentially unconstitutional legislation that the EFF is trying to strike down.
The illegal spying program combined with the Bush torture program, is the thorniest issue outside of the economy that Obama inherits. At issue is whether the Bush administration has permanently set the nation down a path of being ruled by men rather than ruled by law. The Obama administration can and must reverse course.
The last of the American auto industry has been ordered to grovel today before a do-nothing Congress to explain why Congress should be willing to loan the heart of America's manufacturing base enough money to survive. I have a modest alternative[...]
Read The Full Article:
Last Monday, at a screening of Ron Howard?s new film ?Frost/Nixon,? Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace vociferously defended President Bush against criticism by Howard that Bush has abused the office of the presidency in a way similar to President Richard Nixon. “Richard Nixon?s crimes were committed purely in the interest of his own political gain,” said Wallace. Wallace claimed that it was a “gross misreading of history” to say that Bush abused his power “for pure political self preservation” like Nixon did.
Appearing on Mike Gallagher’s radio show today, Wallace revealed that Vice President Dick Cheney personally thanked him at his holiday party last night:
WALLACE: Let me ask you this, did the Vice President say to you, “thank you so much for defending the president and yes I’m going to be giving you a special exit interview in a couple of weeks?”
GALLAGHER: Did he say all that to you?
Later in the interview, Wallace said that “a bunch of people” at Cheney’s party thanked him for his comments. “Cheney was genuinely grateful for what I had done, and Ed Gillespie, the senior counselor to the president, was there and genuinely grateful.” Listen to it here:
As ThinkProgress noted earlier this week, the Bush White House did in fact abuse its power for political gain and to maintain control of the government. Beyond politicizing many federal agencies, the Bush team also outed an undercover CIA agent in order to punish a critic and fired nine U.S. attorneys for political reasons.
(And if you guessed that I also posted over here...well, never mind; I just did, that's all.)
It must be hard for former Senator Man-On-Dog to find fault with the incoming presidential administration, but he gave it his best shot in the Philadelphia Inquirer yesterday here?
As we saw last week in Mumbai, political and religious divisions in the world's largest democracy make our disagreements seem tame by comparison. So when Obama named economist Sonal Shah to his transition team, the unifier invited division.I don?t know what the Hindi term is for ?hyperbole,? but if I knew it, I would surely use it here.
From India to the United States, Hindus, Muslims and Christians criticized her appointment, alleging that she has links to Hindu militants. News of Indian American groups' protests was the top story on the Times of India's Web site for days.
Yes, please do run for president again, Ms. $55,000 Hair Stylist Regular Guy. You can run with Joe "I have a movie agent but I'm really a regular guy" Plumber. You deserve each other - both nasty, both phony.
A woman who appears from campaign finance records to have been Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin?s fashion stylist was paid $54,900 by the Republican National Committee, according to a new report filed with the Federal Election Commission....She's just like you and me, if we lived like Ivana Trump.
The newest report appears to show about $23,000 in additional charges labeled as ?campaign accessories? from a variety of stores, including Saks, Neiman?s, Nordstrom, Bloomingdales, Macy?s, Victoria?s Secret, Brooks Brothers, Ann Taylor and Target....
In addition, the McCain campaign paid Ms. Palin?s traveling hair stylist and makeup artist more than $110,000 for roughly two months of work, according to campaign finance records.
During the hearing held yesterday by the Senate Banking Committee into government assistance for the automotive industry Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) commented on the "scapegoating of the men and women of organized labor" in the auto industry. He also called the false claim about autoworkers making $70/hr a deliberate lie being perpetrated on the American people.
CASEY: I have to say also, with regard to the labor concessions -- Mr. [Ron] Gettelfinger [UAW president], I wanted to review some of those. Because I am stunned by the kind of -- when you hear the talking heads on television and when you read what some people say in this town and across the country about the mythology that's out there about how we're -- how we got to this situation. And, frankly, the scapegoating of the men and women of organized labor, and in particular, autoworkers.
Point number one: In 2005, cuts in wages for active workers and health-care benefits for retirees -- point number one. I'm reading from your testimony. Cuts for new workers, bringing the wage level down to 14 bucks an hour. How many industries are doing that? Reducing the company's liability for retiree health care by 50 percent. And I realize these have been in the record before, but it is very important.
And wages and benefits. You said yourself that they're about 10 percent -- 10 percent of the budget? You would think listening to some of the people talk out there, some of the so-called experts, that wages and benefits were 70 percent of the cost. So there's a lot of mythology, a lot of myth generally that has been put on the record.
In 20-- since 2003, downsizing by the companies has reduced their workforce by 150,000 people. That doesn't get said very often. The labor-cost gap with foreign transplant operations will be largely or completely eliminated. OK? So, it's -- I think it's important to put this information on the record for this hearing. And then we've heard this garbage about 73 bucks an hour. It's a total lie, and some people have perpetrated that deliberately in a calculated way to mislead the American people about what we're doing here. It's a lie, and they know it's a lie.
BY TAYLOR MARSHRegulars know the drill. Pour your favorite cocktail, then it’s a free for all topic menu. Only one rule: We all get along at Tip O’Neil time. Differences put aside to talk about politics, fun things or just relax from a hectic[...]
Read The Full Article: