« Home | Race tightens up » | Change in Hollywood? Don't bet on it. » | More snow in South Africa, more bad science closer... » | To be clear » | Do Democrats get it? » | Terror and the upcoming elections » | Who Really Won Last Night » | Around the Horn » | Charles in Charge no longer? » | A Twisted Webb »

August 18, 2006

The Constitution and Terrorists

John Gibson and Bob Maistros do a great job at analyzing the recent decision to prevent the NSA from using warrantless wiretaps. First, John Gibson notes that the Constitution was left entirely unaddressed in the anti-Bush rant made by the deciding judge. And Bob Maistros one-ups Gibson, noting something interesting. There are some conspiracy-theorists among the Democrats that believe President Bush will try to become a dictator, ensuring his rule for the rest of his life. However, judges may be the ones that fill that role. Jimmy Carter's appointment, and others, can, in some cases, have all the power that the President or Congress (or even both) has, and can never leave office.
But what really takes the cake is the jurist's snide comment that "there are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution."

Oh, really? Then inform me, kindly, where it says in the Constitution that the judiciary can mandate on-demand abortions. Or equal rights for homosexuals. Or restrictions on prayer and religious activities in schools. Or open-the-floodgates, break-the-bank expansions of tort liability and medical malpractice.

"No kings in America?" Judiciary, heal thyself.
Such decisions can be overturned, but can we always rely on appeals to ensure that bad decisions do not continue?

The point of wiretaps is to protect us. A friend of mine, who happens to be a Democrat, recently said that she has nothing to hide, and for that reason, she will not hide anything. If we have nothing to hide, then why should any of us be applauding a decision which will make terror plots that much easier to plan?