#1 By: Xeni Jardin, July 13th, 2013 12:28
Randy Barnett at the WSJ: "The NSA's Surveillance Is Unconstitutional." When you've lost the WSJ on issues thought to be of concern only to privacy-freak-lefties, guys: you've lost the battle. READ THE REST
#2 By: MackReed, July 13th, 2013 13:03
That's rich, coming from a paper owned by a corporate parent (Rupert Murdoch) whose own illegal surveillance of public figures by British tabloids has brought down heavy prosecution on its own head.
#3 By: Ereiamjh, July 13th, 2013 13:48
Well, corporate spying and abuses are just fine doncha know?
Also, to comment on the "leftie" jokes in the summary, in all seriousness this is one of those weird issues that fits into right wing / libertarian narratives as well: "big government" and so on... It fits perfectly well with the "let us business elites" take care of such things narrative...
#4 By: Boundegar, July 13th, 2013 14:17
Came here to say that. Surveillance makes strange bedfellows.
#5 By: Theseus Notmynome, July 13th, 2013 14:22
I've been assured elsewhere that Barnett is a hack and that if the nsa spying were the least bit unconstitutional, the FISA judges would have told us so. So, everything is ok and we can ignore this some more now.
#6 By: Frank_Xavior, July 13th, 2013 19:01
Well, would SOME righties ( especially libertarians, which are still righties til a 3rd party exists) would tottaly be against this shit. Spying goverment doesnt equal SMALL GOVERNMENT, it means Bigger & Badder than ever before, which is what righties are ALL about (sometimes, when is doesnt involve gays, women or corporations. but HEY spyin' dont involve either so LETS GET EM ON OUR SIDE FOR ONCE ! )
I really hope snowden gets to south american & the states pay for this shit but I'm too much of a pessimist to believe it til I see it.
GODSPEED THO, EVERYONE INVOLVED !
#7 By: Rob, July 14th, 2013 11:37
Referring to the WSJ as a "Leftie extremist rag" says much more about the author than it does the newspaper and the topic. People on both sides of the aisle are concerned about privacy: just look at the NRA and its members opposition to a registry. How many "leftie extremists" are members?
#8 By: Halloween Jack, July 14th, 2013 12:00
Alternatively, the WSJ editorial board, which has some of the most ridiculously knee-jerk anti-Democrat writers anywhere, won't pass up any opportunity to embarrass the current administration. Seriously, Xeni, read some of what James Taranto has to say about women and then ask yourself if the enemy of your enemy is really your friend.
#9 By: Daniel Johnson, July 14th, 2013 12:18
This article may help to clarify Xeni's choice of words.
#10 By: Gt Bear, July 14th, 2013 21:43
When I got to law school in 1990, I was happy to see Randy's book on the library shelves. The Forgoten 9th Amendment, I think it was. He blogs sometimes at the libertarian/conservative Volokh conspiracy, and I got to meet him briefly on one of his book tours, maybe Restoring the Lost Constitution. He's been a major player in the Raich case about medical marijuana and the commerce clause challenge to the health care. (He lost that case, but the court agreed with him on the commerce clause, so it's considered a landmak.)
#11 By: Alan Wexelblat, July 16th, 2013 16:21
The writer here is Randy Barnett who (among other things) blogs at The Volokh Conspiracy, one of the leading (and imo best) conservative/libertarian legal blogs. Most of the Conspirators as they call themselves are practicing attorneys with libertarian leanings and several of them have joined with organizations like the ACLU and EFF in filing briefs in various cases. I don't think it requires a particular political leaning to know that the government is just flat-out wrong here.
#12 By: Ereiamjh, July 16th, 2013 18:29
Sure, exactly as I said. Probably unprincipled and ok with corporate spying though, like the kind engaged in by the guy that owns their paper.
#13 By: Xeni Jardin, July 18th, 2013 12:29
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.