In the wake of the recent NSA surveillance ruling by judge Anna Diggs Taylor, two noteworthy and purportedly professional sources of anti-Bush rhetoric, the New York Times Editorial Page and blogger Glenn Greenwald, revealed themselves to be little more than shallow-thinking, un-democratic outcomes-based demagogues, as opposed to political commentators interested in good law, or objective truth.
via Instapundit: ADAM LIPTAK in the New York Times: "Even legal experts who agreed with a federal judge’s conclusion on Thursday that a National Security Agency surveillance program is unlawful were distancing themselves from the decision’s reasoning and rhetoric yesterday. . . . Discomfort with the quality of the decision is almost universal, said Howard J. Bashman, a Pennsylvania lawyer whose Web log provides comprehensive and nonpartisan reports on legal developments."
via Dean Barnett at Hugh Hewitt we learn the Times wrote:
A federal judge in Detroit declared the eavesdropping program to be illegal and unconstitutional. She also offered a scathing condemnation of what lies behind the wiretapping — Mr. Bush’s attempt to expand his powers to the point that he can place himself beyond the reach of Congress, judges or the Constitution.
And blogger Greenwald offered an even more laughable response:
I have read the opinion. Here is my immediate analysis of it. It is a very strong opinion in some places, weak in others, but is rather straightforward -- and sometimes eloquent -- in its almost always unequivocal rejection of the Bush administration's arguments....
The evolution of American Law didn't matter a bit to Greenwald or the Times. What mattered was that they were reading the outcome they wanted; how our legal system went about getting there was just so much grist for the mill. That's an extremely dangerous manner of approaching the Law in a constantly evolving democracy.
Our system of laws is based upon logic, reason and precedent for good reason. It is designed to preempt an unfortunate revolution in American law based upon either the temporal will of the masses, or some small minority with a passing control. It is the reasoning behind any judge's ruling which gives American democracy stability, not the ruling itself.
The Times once again displayed its agenda driven shallowness, in this case caring not a wit about what does or doesn't make good legal sense. And Greenwald revealed himself as a superficial hack completely lacking in an understanding of, or an appreciation for the very thing on which he attempts to sell himself as an expert - American law.
It appears the Times Editorial Board is overdue for a much needed vacation. And we have good reason to be pleased that the briefs of Greenwald are more likely collecting sand on a beach in Rio, than crossing the bar of an American court.