Cheney and the new CIA controversy

2theadvocate.com | AP News

O.K. let all Cheney's supporters begin defending him.

I'm not sure if it violates the constitution, since I'm not sure if it got past the planning stages.

Of course, the same one's defending him will be the same folks who attack "activist" judges for not following the constitution.

 

It's a complete waste of time and money. And, Justices who don't follow the constitution should be attacked. For the record, I am not opposed to confirming Sotomayor as SCJ.

 

I don't know, I wasn't posting here then, but did you think the Clinton investigation was also a complete waste of time and money?

 

Activist judges are on both sides, it's a right wing talking point. There's a good article on how conservatives are all of activisim when it's to there liking.

washingtonpost.com

The justices had before them a simple case, involving a group called Citizens United, that could have been disposed of on narrow grounds. The organization had asked to be exempt from the restrictions embodied in the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law for a movie critical of Hillary Clinton that it produced during last year's presidential campaign. Citizens United says it should not have to disclose who paid for the film.


Rather than decide the case before it, the court engaged in a remarkable exercise of judicial overreach. It postponed its decision, called for new briefs and scheduled a hearing this September on the broader question of whether corporations should be allowed to spend money to elect or defeat particular candidates.
What the court was saying was that it wanted to revisit a 19-year-old precedent that barred such corporate interference in the electoral process. That 1990 ruling upheld what has been the law of the land since 1947, when the Taft-Hartley Act banned independent expenditures by both corporations and labor unions.

To get a sense of just how extreme (and, yes, activist) such an approach would be, consider that laws restricting corporate activity in elections go all the way back to the Tillman Act of 1907, which prohibited corporations from giving directly to political campaigns.

 

Neither of those have anything to do with the original post. You are just spoiling for a fight. Go hug a tree.

 

One was in response to a quote from you. If I were spoiling for a fight, I wouldn't have thrown in the disclaimer that I didn't know what you had said back during the Clinton investigation.

Besides, spoiling for a fight would be right up your alley

Now go change your sanitary pad.

 

This is a pretty balanced view from the Associated Press:

The Associated Press: Officials: CIA program targeted al-Qaida leaders

There really doesnt seem to be anything of substance here. Panetta even says as much. Looks like much ado about nothing.

 

Well according to DRC its no big deal!

 

Don't confuse what really happened with Red's interpretation.