Responding to the Wingnuts I've been trying to publicize my blog a bit more, including on right-wing websites. I've gotten some interesting responses, so I decided to respond in kind to one of them. I think these kinds of replies are a pretty good example of the hollowness of many Republican arguments: First off, if a person is charged with a crime because of a warrantless wire tap then that person has a remedy within out court system. Also, 4th Amendment matters are decided by the Supreme Court and not Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore or some dumbass liberal blog. Abe Lincoln tapped a telegraph for the same purpose Bush has. You are not gonna say Lincoln was a bad President? The Lewinski scandal had everything to do with what Clinton was in trouble for in the private courts. If you think getting a BJ in the Oval Office is ok then you live in a sick twisted world and should seek help! Go out and find a court that wants to indict Mr. Bush. Good luck! Now I shall refute all 4 "arguments," if you can call them that. First, people do indeed have a remedy in the court system, and yes, the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbitrer of the law. This isn't an argument, however. If I murder a man in cold blood and you tell me that's illegal, do I have a defense by saying "well that person's family has a remedy in the court system?" Of course not. We are debating the legality of the issue. This argument almost seems to be "No one know the law, it's the Supreme Court's job, so you have no business blogging about it." If that's the case, we should just stop printing newspapers or having any political discourse whatsoever. Second, I don't know if the Lincoln comment is true, but its irrelevant for several reasons. Foremost, FISA didn't exist back then. There was no statute to violate. Did it violate the Fourth Amendment? Maybe so. It's distinguished from tapping a phone line, however, because there is a greater expectation of privacy via a phone than via a telegraph. Telegraph operators handled all messages so there was no real expectation of privacy. It's just like the fact that you give your phone number to the phone company so you have no expectation of privacy in regards to that. Regardless, this issue has nothing to do with whether Lincoln or Bush were bad presidents. The issue is whether Bush broke the law. Under this line of reasoning, a President can flagrantly violate the law as much as he pleases as long as he is a "good" President. That's nutty. Third, the poster argues that getting a BJ in the oval office is a greater crime than massive warrantless wiretaps. In one instance, no one's rights were violated. In another, thousands of US citizens had their constitutional rights violated. There is simply no comparison. Further, my original point was simply that if Clinton gets impeached for perjury in a private civil suit, then Bush necessarily should be impeached for violation of a Congressional statute and the Fourth Amendment. Also, I really don't care what goes on in people's private sexual lives. If you want to know the intimate details of another man's sexual escapades, then I think that "you live in a sick twisted world and should seek help!" Bush has done far more evil, disgraceful, disgusting things in the Oval Office such as conspiring with mega-corporations to rape the poor and devising strategies to mislead the American public into the phony Iraq war. Fourth, the poster has no clue of the impeachment process. No court indicts the President to begin impeachment. The House of Representatives approve the Articles of Impeachment and the Senate holds a trial. This is an extra-judicial proceeding. Go read up on the law before making bogus arguments.