Wave Maker: Wiretapping Mess and Judge Alito

THIS IS MY VIRTUAL LIVING ROOM. COME ON IN AND SAY HELLO. THE BAR IS OVER IN THE CORNER -- HELP YOURSELF, BUT MIND YOUR MANNERS.

Monday, January 09, 2006

Wiretapping Mess and Judge Alito

So seldom these days does anyone request my opinion on weighty matters (perhaps one of the great benefits of blogging is that you don't have to wait for someone to ask your opinion!) --

However, the redoubtable Karen, a resilient reader, loyal commenter and ardent Patriots fan, requested that I offer a few words on (1) the wiretapping mess and (2) Samuel Alito; and I am happy to oblige.

Wiretapping

I confess that I have not been scouring the domestic surveillance facts as closely as one should before wading into the debate -- because I really don't care that much, frankly. My understanding is that these "wiretaps" are principally computer-generated scans of thousands of telephone records reviewed to monitor the existence of connections between the telephone numbers of known or suspected foreign enemies of the United States and telephone numbers of people in this country, whether citizen or not. If that is the issue, then the controversy is one big load of predictable, bullshit politics.

If, as a result of these monitorings, federal agents are eavesdropping on actual conversations between citizens of this country and foreigners who are known or suspected enemies of our country, I don't even have a huge problem with that -- although I will grant that history should suggest we be wary of trusting our government too much on that front, we live in a different time than when J. Edgar Hoover was spying on Martin Luther King or Abbie Hoffman.

Given the nature and resources of our enemies, and the tactis they employ, I think that the penultimate goal should be to reduce as far as possible the chances that another 9/11 can be perpetrated on us. The Marquis of Queensbury Rules do a gentleman no good when he is in the ring with an unprincipled murderer.

Judge Alito

I think Samuel Alito is as equally qualified to sit on the Supreme Court as John Roberts or any other nominee in the last four decades. That he is a conservative is just tough luck for the Democratic minority. I do not believe he will bring a conservative activism to the bench, and I think, after he is confirmed (as he will be), he will surprise (or disappoint) many with his restraint and even-handedness. Not in the fashion that David Souter has, thankfully. Just my prediction.

I would be remiss, however, if I failed to express my deep contempt for the likes of Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy for their never-ending hypocrisy and bottomless wealth of intellectual dishonesty. Both are smart enough (at least smarter than Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, who I believe do not know any better) to appreciate the role of the Senate in judicial confirmations and the utter devastation their assertion of "ideological qualification" would have on the advise and consent function of the Senate.

Thank you, Karen, for asking. I feel slightly better now.

Posted by: Wave Maker / 9:39 AM/ |