pageok
pageok
pageok
Greenwald Responds:
In a post yesterday, I asked what Glenn Greenwald might have in mind when he said that I was "a leading apologist for many . . . of the lawless and radical Bush policies of the last eight years." Glenn has now graciously responded:
Orin Kerr, who specializes in using professorial and self-consciously cautious language to endorse radical surveillance policies, feigns shock that I characterized his positions the way I did, and asks: "does anyone know what 'lawless and radical' policies I apparently served as an apologist for?"
  Greenwald then offers four positions I have taken in the last eight years in which I have allegedly been an apologist for "lawless and radical Bush policies." They are, with links in Glenn's update, as follows.

The Unbeliever:
People still read Glenn Greenwald? I thought he went in the same "oh, YOU" category as Andrew Sullivan.
11.6.2008 12:57pm
Volokh Groupie:
Seriously--Greenwald is a pretty pathetic shell of himself.

Why waste your time addressing vitriolic partisans?
11.6.2008 1:04pm
Viceroy:
The fact that you don't demand that a war crimes tribunal be immediately convened makes you an apologist.

Kidding!

(or maybe not-we don't really know what happened behind the scenes....)
11.6.2008 1:05pm
Anon21:
Yeah, add another liberal reader who agrees with Greenwald on the substance of these issues, but disagrees with his characterization of your positions. Greenwald and Keith Olbermann fall into the category of people who are obnoxiously strident and dismissive of criticism about views I largely agree with, rendering them about as watchable/readable as their counterparts on the right (people like Sean Hannity). (Probably an ironic comparison because, as I understand it, Greenwald and Olbermann have some sort of feud.)
11.6.2008 1:05pm
SPQR (mail) (www):
A very well reasoned post, Kerr. But when you are done, you've spent a lot of good analysis on Greenwald's floppy shoes, baggy pants and big red nose. Regardless of the thoughtfulness of your writing, the subject is still a clown.
11.6.2008 1:06pm
Wayne Jarvis:
What's wrong with "professorial" language"?

Why is Greenwald so anti-intellectual?
11.6.2008 1:09pm
titus32:
Greenwald's way out of his league.
11.6.2008 1:13pm
CrimLawStudent (mail):
This is just a case where GG was using heightened (and careless?) rhetoric. If you consider his audience and the points that he is (always) trying to make, it makes it more understandable (though perhaps not justifiable) why he chooses those words (lawless, apologist).

I think Professor Kerr has done what GG and many of the commentators of this blog should also try to do. Be reasonable (or at least understanding to the extent that you're willing to try to delineate the argument in order to discover the distinct points of contention), be exact (with the words you choose), and be sure to argue the merits.

(That's his MO when he's teaching his 1L class, at least!)

Otherwise, the discourse will just devolve into boorish rhetorical positioning, or even worse, nonsense (if those are not one and the same!) Maybe this has something to do with why these comment sections have to get shutdown every so often?
11.6.2008 1:18pm
Nunzio:
I'm not a frequent reader of Greenwald (who Anon21 accurately sums up as the other side of the fanatic coin of a Hannity), but just as a matter of opinion does he believe that the 4th Amendment's touchstone of reasonableness has no balancing between liberty and security?

There's a point when many people think it goes too far in one direction or the other, but why doesn't he think his position, as to opposed to the one enacted by the current Congress and the W. administration, is the extreme one even if he thinks it's the right one?

And does anyone think Obama, even after Gitmo is closed and many detainees released, is going to put every remaining detainee through the criminal system?

The habeas procedure the S.C. staked out doesn't require this, even if it would be a good idea (and is the historical remedy for a habeas violation), but I don't think Obama will.
11.6.2008 1:20pm
CrimLawStudent (mail):
Wow, just read a few comments...

Unless the previous commentators are being satirical (in that they are purposely being careless in throwing around those words, when a corollary of OK's post was that people shouldn't carelessly throw around words), these responses are extremely ironic.
11.6.2008 1:22pm
tvk:
Orin, I think part of this is that you are simply writing to different audiences. You are writing to a bunch of lawyers, many with academic styles of thinking, and pretty much all with enough reasonableness to give conservative points of view a fair shake. For this group of people, the positions that you have taken, with the caveats you have placed on them, seem pretty reasonable. For example, opposing terrorist surveillance while noting that Judge Taylor's opinion is exceptionally poorly reasoned is, from an academic legal perspective to be quite right. Just as being pro-choice and giving voice to the thought that Roe v. Wade has some weak reasoning is not considered to be an apologist for the pro-life side.

But Greenwald is not an academically inclined lawyer. He is a political pundit. For those of that world, the side you choose and the substantive result are all that matters. If you opposed Judge Taylor's opinion, you are on the other side and a Bush administration apologist. If you oppose Roe v. Wade, you are anti-abortion. This is just an alien world to the one you live in. So I doubt that further conversation between you and Greenwald will be much productive.
11.6.2008 1:30pm
josh:
I'd like to see my fellow libs avoid Greenwald's type of rhetoric over the next 4 (8?) years. I just spent the last 2 years watching my guy get smeared by a whole host of people (unfortunately too many in VC comment threads), not for his policy preferences, but for who he was as a person. Fortunately, my guy responded with pleas that we disagree without being disagreeable. While I admit that I too can become disagreeable when pushed hard enough, I'd like to avoid falling into the same sludge that I found so distasteful during the campaign.

The bottom line is Prof K knows the law well enough to be a tenured professor. I still have a right to disagree with him. But I'd prefer to engage rather than name-call.

Finally, I'd like to distinguish between the disagreements with someone like Prof. K, and those who actually do (and did) support conservative positions over the last eight years simply because they are (or were) conservative themselves. Prof. Kerr gave the common aside that he has criticized Bush at times in the past. Unlike others in the blogosphere, I believe him and agree he has in an intellectually honest and consistent manner. Others have not. They may deserve a slight level of scorn, but, still, I'd rather engage and disagree.
11.6.2008 1:31pm
bikeguy (mail):
Perhaps Greenwald's sock puppet would like to weigh in on these issues?
11.6.2008 1:33pm
Gromit (mail):
You give GG more respect and time than he deserves. In my view, he is the Ted Rall of the written word: so far gone, so hysterical, so removed from reason as to justify simply ignoring his barbaric yawps rather than to dignify him with a response.
11.6.2008 1:34pm
josh:
On the flip side, like I said, there ARE things to disagree about, without being disagreeable. For example, Prof Kerr, I would like to see you address Greenwald's comments about the Taylor decision. You call it poorly reasoned, but he argues it was decided on summary judgment, which, from a procedural matter, requires the outcome. I don't recall seeing you address that point.

Also, while I do want to see a move away from the name-calling, there are times when I find it justified to attribute character traits to pundits, bloggers, etc., even when they at times don't explicitly embrace those traits. The best example I can think of now is the Cal Prop 8 issue. I apologize to those who were for the initiative, but I find it discriminatory against gays. That is, I find its supporters real motive is not to protect the "sanctity of marriage," but b/c of animus towards others. I feel that way, even though Prop 8 supporters may never have said "I hate gays."
11.6.2008 1:37pm
Bob from Ohio (mail):

graciously


Greenwald does nothing graciously.

Re: comment 1, amazingly Greenwald is several levels above the vile Sulivan.
11.6.2008 1:38pm
Anoymous:
Prof. Kerr -

You can't argue with the "I'm right, you're evil" line of reasoning.
11.6.2008 1:39pm
Bart (mail):
Why are you giving Greenwald the time of day, nevertheless responding to his wingnut name calling as if it were legitimate legal analysis?
11.6.2008 1:46pm
Brennan:
What is wrong with "professorial and self-consciously cautious language"? (Greenwald could have omitted needless words and said "scholarly" instead - I wonder why he didn't?)

I suppose that if one thinks that the internet is simply a battleground for flamewars or a showcase for one's own sense of moral superiority, then Prof. Kerr's sin is plain to see - he has failed to lower his rhetorical standards sufficiently to fit in. For shame.

Perhaps, Prof. Kerr, you could reform by pledging to violate Godwin's law at least once a day? No? Ok, how about once a week and then work yourself up?
11.6.2008 1:48pm
guy in the veal calf office (mail) (www):
Don't wrestle with pigs; you get dirty and they like it.
11.6.2008 1:48pm
dude:
Orin,

I don't understand why someone like you would bother with Greenwald, who is not a remotely serious commentator. There's no point in trying to engage someone like Greenwald because he's not interested in a serious discussion, as his remarks regarding you amply demonstrate. You can be as reasonable as you like with him, and he'll still spew vitriol at you because that's the type of person he is. So, I just don't get why you're trying to reason with him.
11.6.2008 1:50pm
EIDE_Interface (mail):
The GGs of the world will now be enshrined by Zero with huge powers. First off, Zero will ban all non-ultra left wing blogs.
11.6.2008 1:50pm
Mark Rockwell (mail):
It's pretty obvious that calling a debate among legal scholars/enthusiasts an advocacy of "lawlessness" is a strictly colloquial, substance-less, and idiotic insult.


Except maybe in the banal sense that 50% of all litigants advocate lawlessness.
11.6.2008 1:55pm
wfjag:
Dear Unbeliever:
GG fancies himself the man behind the mask. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_for_vendetta Thus the significance of throwing bombs on November 5th. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes_Night GG, however, appears to confuse the lack of the reality the former, a comic book hero, with the reality of the reality of the latter, a failed anacharist who was executed.
11.6.2008 1:55pm
Constantin:
Josh, who is "your guy" you are referring to? Is it Obama? If so, it takes some real audacity to scold those who criticize him "as a person" when his entire candidacy was the biggest exercise in personality cultism in modern American history.
11.6.2008 2:09pm
justwatching666 (mail):
Bart, are you the same "Bart" that GG banned?
11.6.2008 2:16pm
Roy Englert:
Orin, if you say an opinion reached the right result for the wrong reasons, it NECESSARILY follows that you are an apologist for the opposite result. You say Judge Taylor reached the right result for the wrong reasons when he struck down the TSP. It follows that you are an apologist for the TSP. Q.E.D. Similarly, Ruth Bader Ginsburg says Roe v. Wade reached the right result for the wrong reasons. It follows that she is an apologist for the Texas anti-abortion statute struck down in Roe. Anti-civil-liberties Kerr, I'd like to introduce anti-reproductive-choice Ginsburg.

See how much fun you can have if you take this kind of vacuous reasoning seriously?
11.6.2008 2:21pm
x. trapnel (mail) (www):
Two points:

1. I read GG as operating with a pretty robust conception of the Rule of Law. Hence "lawlessness" covers any arena over which political actors are able to act against individuals without independent oversight or at least ex post accountability, even if this discretion is authorized "by law." This is about constraint-vs-discretion.

2. He certainly uses outrageous rhetoric; that's because he's outraged. Whether or not the policies are "radical" in terms of popular or political support, he believes them to be a radical departure from our constitutional principles. If you believed as he does, outrage would indeed be the proper response--one of his objections to what's been going on is precisely the willingness to discuss outrageous policies (torture, unlimited executive authority) as if they were reasonable. The argument is simple: constitutional constraint depends on elites and ordinary citizens not merely *disapproving* of governmental overreach but *hating* it, being *outraged* by it--if constitutional violations become merely one area of policy disagreement to be traded off against others, republican government is doomed. (Which, I tend to think, it is.)
11.6.2008 2:25pm
loki13 (mail):
Prof. Kerr,

I tend to disagree with you on some issues (usually run-of-the-mill 4th Am.) and agree on others (usually 'Cyberspace' law) but I have always found you reasoned and intelligent, and your well-sourced analysis has, at the very least, cause me to re-consider my own positions (if not change them).

You are, um, OK in my book.
11.6.2008 2:25pm
NR:
FWIW, count me among the many liberal readers of this blog who find Orin Kerr's posts consistently thoughtful and fair-minded, even when I disagree with him on substance. I can't think of any blogger less deserving of being called an "apologist" or one who promotes "lawlessness." Greenwald's over-the-top ad hominem really missed the mark here, and in my opinion it reflects poorly on him. We ought to be able to disagree about complex legal and policy issues without automatically accusing one another of bad faith. Perhaps Greenwald's problem is that he doesn't recognize how difficult some of the questions he posts on really are -- he just thinks he is obviously right about everything he holds a strong opinion on.
11.6.2008 2:27pm
D.R.M.:
Greenwald could have omitted needless words


Not really. Look at his oeuvre. Greenwald couldn't have, even if his life had depended on it.
11.6.2008 2:27pm
Anderson (mail):

Of all the people at the VC to pick on, Greenwald singles out Orin Kerr????????????????????????

Weird, man, weird.

Or: Weird man. Weird.
11.6.2008 2:38pm
NR:
I have always found you reasoned and intelligent, and your well-sourced analysis has, at the very least, cause me to re-consider my own positions (if not change them).

I heartily concur. One of the reasons I frequent this blog (reading several times a day and commenting rarely) is to challenge my preconceptions and better understand alternative positions on matters of law and policy. I have changed my mind on some issues and tempered my views on others as a direct result of reading this blog (especially OK and EV, and many of the regular commenters as well). Even when I disagree (at times strongly) with the main post, I always come away with a better understanding of the issues and an appreciation for why others could hold an opposing view. The internets need more of that kind of dialogue and a whole lot less bile and vitriol.

Of course, it's fine that Greenwald writes with passion about issues he cares about, and I share many of his concerns. But it's neither necessary nor productive to direct invective against thoughtful proponents of opposing views who are willing to engage in an honest intellectual exchange.
11.6.2008 2:52pm
David Walser:
Of course, it's fine that Greenwald writes with passion about issues he cares about, and I share many of his concerns. But it's neither necessary nor productive to direct invective against thoughtful proponents of opposing views who are willing to engage in an honest intellectual exchange. (Emphasis added.)

It is a productive strategy if the purpose is to stop debate. I believe that is Greenwald's purpose and it's why he targeted someone as reasonable and fair as Professor Kerr. If Greenwald wanted to promote a free and civil discussion, he'd welcome and encourage Kerr's contributions. He'd hold up Kerr's posts as a model for others, on all sides of any issue, to emulate.

Instead, he attacks as unreasonable one of the most reasonable of voices for expressing a policy view that differs only mildly from his own. Note: It's not appropriate to say Kerr's view is "opposing" Greenwald's. Kerr is NOT the polite and civil voice of conservative opinion. (That would have been William F. Buckley, Jr.) Kerr shares many of Greenwald's policy preferences -- at least their views are closer to each other than Kerr's views are to the conservative position. By attacking someone who is, in the main, an ally of his policy preferences, Greenwald is attempting to restrict the scope of what ideas are considered to be reasonable. If Kerr is to be considered extreme, than anyone a few millimeters to the right is simply beyond the pale.
11.6.2008 3:30pm
josh:
Constantin

"[I]t takes some real audacity to scold those who criticize him "as a person" when his entire candidacy was the biggest exercise in personality cultism in modern American history."

Exhibit A. People liked Obama as a candidate. Myself, I agree with his policy positions. I don't think it takes any level of audacity to point out the similarities between Greenwald's name-calling and some of the criticism of Obama.

"The biggest exercise in personality cultism in modern American history"? That's the same hyperbole as Greenwald's "apologist" and "lawless and reckless" rhetoric. That's not engagement in a disagreement on the merits of his policy choices.
11.6.2008 3:33pm
mls (www):
I think tvk hit the nail on the head.
11.6.2008 3:38pm
winstontwo (mail):

Finally, it seems that Greenwald's case really boils down to me weighing civil liberties and public safety interests differently than himself, the ACLU, and Jack Balkin (the sources he uses as reference points in his post).

Or it could be that Greenwald read and understands the legal statutes which the Buch administration repeatedly violated. Another possibility.
11.6.2008 3:48pm
BillW:
"Or it could be that Greenwald read and understands the legal statutes which the Buch administration repeatedly violated. Another possibility."

In which case, maybe he should have cited some examples of Kerr defending such actions?
11.6.2008 4:03pm
zippypinhead:
Anderson's 2:38 pm post wins the thread. Pretty much says everything that needs to be said about Greenwald's attacks.

Professor Kerr, move on. Ignore Greenwald. Really, no need to be even remotely thin-skinned about his outrageous comments. He's worth but a small footnote on the list of significant contemporary pundits, and that's only because he's one of the few Internet Trolls who've actually figured out how to get paid Big Buck$ to spew his absolutist bile. In fact, I'd recommend just closing this thread, boldfacing Anderson's pithy observation (and maybe Veal Calf Office's too), and getting on with getting on...
11.6.2008 4:33pm
Brianrw00 (mail):
The lesson here appears to be that paying attention to Greenwald is a waste of time and energy.
11.6.2008 4:36pm
MJG:
Greenwald's other three points are defensible, though I think you're right that disagreeing on difficult issues is a far cry from being an "apologist" for lawlessness.

But Greenwald is exactly wrong about Judge Taylor's opinion. I did some work on the FISA stuff back then, and (a) Judge Taylor's opinion is awful, and I don't mean the typical blog comment "Oh it's awful, but I haven't read it, but the criminal should go free/get the death penalty," but in a this-cannot-even-be-considered-analysis kind of awful.

(b) You actually said the NSA program was illegal under FISA's terms, which hardly makes you an apologist,

(c) nor, if I remember correctly, did you buy the "commander-in-chief can do anything" rationale; and

(d) I think all this put you in exactly the same position as folks at Concurring Opinions and other blogs.

So, insofar as Greenwald tries to rely on the fact that someone disagreed with that Taylor opinion as evidence of their insanity, then they likely have not read it.
11.6.2008 4:51pm
GV:
Just another liberal who wanted to add that while I often disagree with Orin -- and have perhaps at times gone over the civil line in expressing that disagreement -- I think Glenn is flat-out wrong on this one. I think Josh hit the nail on its head:


I'd like to see my fellow libs avoid Greenwald's type of rhetoric over the next 4 (8?) years. I just spent the last 2 years watching my guy get smeared by a whole host of people (unfortunately too many in VC comment threads), not for his policy preferences, but for who he was as a person. Fortunately, my guy responded with pleas that we disagree without being disagreeable. While I admit that I too can become disagreeable when pushed hard enough, I'd like to avoid falling into the same sludge that I found so distasteful during the campaign.
11.6.2008 5:07pm
tk (mail):
Honestly, I don't know why anyone takes Greenwald seriously. I find his whole act not only tiresome but possibly harmful. In another world, he'd be working for Pravda or for the English language version of the North Korean news agency website or for the Ministry of Information. If he couldn't use the word "lawless" half of his sentences would have holes in them.

It may give some satisfaction to be respond to his arguments, such as they are, point by point (it's actually pretty easy to argue with someone that doesn't know what they're talking about), but I don't know why anyone would bother. It's not like he's intellectually honest enough to change his mind (or acknowledge that he was mistaken or wrong).
11.6.2008 5:51pm
Paul A'Barge (mail):
Greenwald is a mutt. Why bother?
11.6.2008 5:58pm
M:
"So, insofar as Greenwald tries to rely on the fact that someone disagreed with that Taylor opinion as evidence of their insanity, then they likely have not read it."

Or he read it and lost his Crim Law outline and has no understanding of 4th Amendment jurisprudence whatsoever.

Greenwald is being disingenuous. He knows it. He is a comment troll writ large.
11.6.2008 6:20pm
Realist Liberal:
Prof. K~
Since you said you appreciated the comments I'll add my name to the already long line. While I have occasionally disagreed with you, I have always held out your analysis as the prime example of what legal analysis should be and your tone of debate to be exactly the type of tone we need more of. GG is an embarrassment. Someone above said he is the opposite side of the coin of Sean Hannity, I think that nails it exactly.
11.6.2008 6:45pm
Greenwald's Sock Puppet:
@bikeguy: Sure thing.

Professor Kerr,

You obviously fail to understand that I preemptively won the debate with my earlier statement that "The fact that someone uses professorial and caveat-filled language when defending indecent policies like these may make them civil, but not decent." See? I knew you were going to engage in all of this legal mumbo-jumbo in some sad attempt to legitimize the unlegitimizable. So when you defended yourself on (giggle) substance, you were actually proving my point. For the sake of the enlightenment of my readers, every legal argument you make has already been pre-identified by yours truly as a kind of Legal Voodoo of the John Yoo variety. The more you dissemble, the more correct you prove me to be.

Now, you can disagree, but then you'll just be proving your own intellectual dishonesty.
11.6.2008 7:38pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):
The Taylor suit being the FOIA one?

What is controversial about that?
11.6.2008 8:09pm
M:
Judge Taylor ruled that the NSA domestic wiretapping regime was unconstitutional. I believe it was thought to be controversial because it was a silly opinion, written on the fly, with no serious thought given to it. When your legal analysis amounts to that the program "is obviously in violation of the Fourth Amendment," you know you're in trouble. If you need to use the words "obviously" or "clearly," your conclusions are neither obvious nor clear. I had that beaten into me my first year of law school.

When a federal judge declares that the Fourth Amendment requires prior warrants for all reasonable searches, we're into cuckoo land, and a law professor pointing out the cuckooness should be expected.
11.6.2008 9:14pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):

In the case of Al Marri, for example, I do think it's pretty odd to say that the executive has no authority beyond the usual criminal detention powers to detain a non-citizen al Qaeda terrorist who enters the U.S. to execute a terrorist attack. Similarly, in the case of the FISA statutes, I do think that it makes sense to allow intelligence agencies to monitor foreigners located outside the United States with a large-scale FISA order rather than individualized warrants.


IANAL, but let's look at these two separately.

First, I think that criminal law exclusively does address the Al Murri case in the same way that the general authorization to use military force should not have lead to mass detentions of Japanese in the internment camp system. If criminal law is not enough, then Congress can suspend habeas corpus and essentially cede all authority temporarily to the executive in this manner.

Now, on the NSA wiretapping case, the Washington Post has written some interesting articles on the role of the FISA court in this area. The FISA court had apparently ruled that the wiretapping was constitutional, provided that the data collected was not available to domestic law enforcement, and that no search warrants could be issued based on the information. Apparently, on several cases, members of the DoJ blew the whistle on violations of this ruling and the program was ordered suspended until the issues could be cleared up.

I think that the FISA court's position is reasonable in this case, that a blanket search is Constitutional provided that:

1) The targets are foreign persons (neither residents nor citizens of the US) and
2) The information is not available for domestic search warrants and can only be used as foreign intelligence.

In my view, such a search, limited in its scope and applicability in the above manner is quite reasonable. However it becomes unreasonable the moment a single US person is subject to a search warrant based on the information found in that blanket search.
11.6.2008 9:40pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):
BTW, my view on the Al Murri case is somewhat tempered by the fact that governments use laws as they find them useful, not necessarily as intended. For example, see the recent use of anti-terror laws in the UK directed at Iceland for the horrific terrorist plot of paying the bank guarantees to their citizens first.....

If you give the government additional authority to detain people they say they believe to be terrorists, you have no guarantee that this will be done as intended.
11.6.2008 9:47pm
LM (mail):
CrimLawStudent:

I think Professor Kerr has done what GG and many of the commentators of this blog should also try to do. Be reasonable [...]

Otherwise, the discourse will just devolve into boorish rhetorical positioning, or even worse, nonsense (if those are not one and the same!)

It's true that this is consistent with Orin's tendencies and his objectives for this blog. But I'll bet he'd have taken the same approach here regardless, for a different reason: He's smart. He knows that when someone overreaches like GG did, especially while attacking you personally, nothing skewers them like engaging the attack in the most civil, substantive way possible, without so much as a hint of snark or defensiveness. It's the perfect jiu-jitzu because once the fallacies have been exposed, the person who leveled the baseless attack is the only one visible to judge.

I'm a frequent fan of GG's work. I think he's done some useful analysis and made effective arguments I agree with. But I can't help believing that as soon as Orin saw this attack, like a chess player who sees his opponent make a fatal move, he starting enjoying the picture in his mind's eye of how this would play out.
11.6.2008 10:10pm
LM (mail):
(BTW, Orin didn't eschew snark entirely. It was just deadpan enough to be effectively invisible at the courser frequencies Slate operates at.)
11.6.2008 10:14pm
David Warner:
Anon 21,

"Greenwald and Olbermann have some sort of feud"

This says just about all that needs saying. 95% pissing contest, 5% analysis.

"You can't argue with the "I'm right, you're evil" line of reasoning."

I believe he just did, and emerged victorious.

I think OK needs to pick on someone his own size next time, frankly.
11.6.2008 11:56pm
Elliot123 (mail):
"I'd like to see my fellow libs avoid Greenwald's type of rhetoric over the next 4 (8?) years. I just spent the last 2 years watching my guy get smeared by a whole host of people (unfortunately too many in VC comment threads), not for his policy preferences, but for who he was as a person."

Well, people vote for the who the candidate is as a person, and the candidates campaign on who they are as persons. Lots of people tell us policy should be front and center because they want to talk about policy. That's fine, but that's not what most people use as a basis in casting their votes. They vote for a person. Polices aren't candidates.

One guy said over and over he wanted change, and that's sure not even close to being a policy. The other guy said he was a maverick, and that's as bad as change.
11.7.2008 1:48pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):

The other guy said he was a maverick, and that's as bad as change.


Actually, the other guy said he was a maverick and wanted MORE change. That was one of the big reasons I voted for Obama.
11.7.2008 1:51pm
ShipofFools:
Prof Kerr writes: "So if I've been an apologist for the lawless and radical policies of the Bush Administration, at least I was always in the company of the Democratic Congress and the Article III judiciary."


Well at least you still got your libertarian bona-fides. People do realize the hilarity of this scene?

A liberal blogger accusing a blogger on a libertarian site of not being libertarian enough and the libertarian defends himself by out liberaling the liberal.

Only in America.

BTW morons, Greenwald was a former constitutional litigator. He isnt just some journalist who thinks he is matlock.

And for the record, I am just as or more outraged than Mr Greenwald over what the White House under Bush allowed to happen to the so-called Rule of Law under the unitary executive and what the apologist Dem majority Congress let them do and retroactively made A-OK. We all should be weeping for what has taken place by those on both sides of the aisle. IF the American people had half a brain, every single incumbent would have been thrown on their rears because it is ALL of them that is the problem.
11.9.2008 6:37pm
Crust (mail):
It looks like comments are not allowed on OK's most recent post in response to Greenwald and have been turned off on his other reponse more recent than this one.

[OK Comments: Crust, I have turned off comments to the relevant threads. Greenwald's links generally come with an army of dittoheads who are eager to attack but don't actually know what my positions actually are. I put some time into responding to them and explaining my position, which shows the error, but I have found it a fruitless exercise. It's not the Internet at its finest, unfortunately.]
11.10.2008 9:40am