Obama is protecting democrats who knew of the wiretaps and their illegality, I also expect....

[uponit7771]

...him to put issues that arent close to fixing the economy and health care on the back burner.

After those issues are passed along with energy, not addressing wiretapps et al would be more than disappointing.

Democrats losing netroots and grass roots would be beyond stupid.

BTW: I gave Bush more than 3 months even knowing he was a rich, apathetic asshole...

[Skittles]

1. nice try

[rug]

2. I'd give it a 7.

[billyoc]

4. Out of 100.

[uponit7771]

7. I've seen enough knee jerk reactions to Obama to give him the benefit of the doubt...

...and he's only been in office 3 months...I'll give him more time before I lose all faith but the way this issue is CURRENTLY being handled is stupid

[Skittles]

10. "this issue" is basic to our fucking FREEDOMS

GET A FUCKING CLUE

[uponit7771]

11. After you get some decaf man, calm down. The knee jerk reactions on this board to Obama has been...

....highlighted many times, I'm will to give the guy some time...not a lot of time but....some time.

I gave Bush more than 3 months

[Skittles]

15. get over yourself

I'm sick of the code words "knee jerk", "poutrage", etc. to describe LEGITIMATE CONCERNS REGARDING VERY SERIOUS ISSUES

[FrenchieCat]

3. I think it will work out as it should.

One of the things that caught my eye is this....

"the Department Of Justice's second argument that is the most pernicious. The DOJ claims that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying — that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes.

This is a radical assertion that is utterly unprecedented. No one — not the White House, not the Justice Department, not any member of Congress, and not the Bush Administration — has ever interpreted the law this way."
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/obama-doj-worse-than-bush

I'm wondering if this ridiculous argument was done to force the judge to rule against the Obama Administration on this? I wrote to the White House and sent them this particular article.

Now, I wait.

[CTLawGuy]

5. yes

the DOJ is not going to NOT defend the lawsuit. The court will determine whether the arguments are valid. If they are not, then the court will reject them and rule in favor of the plaintiffs.

[Jennicut]

6. If the lawsuit was won would it set up a precedent that anyone can sue the govt. over anything?

I am very unhappy about this but also see the other side.

[uponit7771]

9. You can ALREADY sue the government over anything this would mean that you can't if they say...

...national security.

It's an asinine argument

[uponit7771]

8. I wouldn't doubt it, the justice dept has purposefully blown cases before IMHO

.....

[Occam Bandage]

12. Like Ted Stevens? Obviously Bush's DOJ protecting a Repub by incompetently prosecuting him. nt

[Jennicut]

13. Its incredibly obvious they messed up to keep poor Teddy from a conviction.

[uponit7771]

14. Exactly, they might of well just pimp slapped the judges and pee'd on the court floor