Skimming the Kitzmiller opinion (pdf file here) issued earlier today by the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, I couldn't help but suffer a little grief over the retirement of Justice O'Connor, who gave us the endorsement test, and thus a level-headed approach to the Establishment Clause. My concern is that today's opinion might be overruled as reliant on outdated jurisprudence, out of step with today's more conservative appellate jurists. Only time will tell, but for now, I'm thankful that a judge has taken the time to stem the tide of what seems to me to be a clearly misleading educational requirement.
And while we're on the subject of political brainwashing, what's up with warrantless domestic wiretap surveillance? As I understand it, the law provides for investigators to approach a secret court to obtain a warrant based on evidence less stringent than the usual 'probable cause' for searches in a criminal investigation...so we lower the bar for the security-hawks, and still they skip the steps, not just in emergency, time-sensitive situations, but over the course of months and years. It can't be that they just didn't know about the warrant process; they made the arbitrary decision that they just didn't have to follow it. Strange because this statute makes it a federal crime to engage in domestic wiretap surveillance except if authorized by going through the process of getting a court order approving the tap. I watched Russ Feingold on C-SPAN last night get worked up over the issue, and read today's Talking Points Memo posts by Josh Marshall. I hope the brouhaha doesn't get smothered by the Christmas break in the action and another revelation. And I wonder if Patrick Fitzgerald is paying attention...I suspect there are some big fish to reel in on this one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment