This morning, ThinkProgress revealed charges of hypocrisy leveled against former Vice President Al Gore by Attorney General Gonzales were completely baseless. Now, the AP has updated its story on the Bush administration’s smear of Gore to include the facts:

McClellan said the Clinton-Gore administration had engaged in warrantless physical searches, and he cited an FBI search of the home of CIA turncoat Aldrich Ames without permission from a judge. He said Clinton’s deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, had testified before Congress that the president had the inherent authority to engage in physical searches without warrants.

“I think his hypocrisy knows no bounds,” McClellan said of Gore.

But at the time of the Ames search in 1993 and when Gorelick testified a year later, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act required warrants for electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes, but did not cover physical searches. The law was changed to cover physical searches in 1995 under legislation that Clinton supported and signed.

Bush’s attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, made the same arguments as McClellan during interviews Monday on CNN’s “Larry King Live” and Fox News Channel’s “Hannity & Colmes.”

The White House responded to Gore’s criticism with a dishonest smear. The media, thankfully, is beginning to understand that.

The larger issue, however, is that the White House doesn’t have an honest response to criticism of their warrantless domestic wiretapping program.

from thinkprogress

Migrant bills spur debate

Dozens of people, including many from out of state, packed Representatives Hall yesterday to testify on legislation that would give local authorities sweeping powers to limit illegal immigration.

"The point of this law is to get the local police into the game," said Rep. Andrew Renzullo, a Hudson Republican.

That says it all. Its a game for this local yahoos who wanna run around playing vigilante. Absolutely the wrong people to entrust with this duty.

Joan Molinara, a member of 9/11 Families for a Secure America, traveled from Pennsylvania to testify. Her son, a New York City firefighter, was killed during the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and for her, strict local immigration laws are about safety, not race.

"If one state has the courage to stand up and do something, then others will follow," she said.

The domino theory (The idea that brought us Vietnam) is alive and well. If this is the case how come we don't have an income tax or a bottle deposit?

If these bills were challenged, it would be very difficult to defend them against a constitutional challenge," she said.

Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat, said he's watching the debate, but he thinks immigration laws may be beyond the scope of the Legislature.

"I certainly don't think it's a big problem, but . . . I believe that the federal government has a responsibility to enforce the laws which are on the books," he said. "They need to step up and do that."

Gov. Two Sides... On two sides of every issue. DO you want know where Lynch stands on any issue? He is directly in the center and NOT YET taking a position. What courage, what vision… what leadership. If only his approval rating could single handedly make this a better state.

from stateline.org

"If I believe that he was going to go in there and overthrow Roe, the question is, most likely, yes [that would merit a filibuster]."

Feinstein today:

"I do not see a likelihood of a filibuster," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. "This might be a man I disagree with, but it doesn't mean he shouldn't be on the court."

Alito before the hearings:

I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.

Alito at the hearings, responding to Feinstein's line of questioning about Roe and stare decisis:

"The Supreme Court has said that this is a question that calls for the exercise of judgment. And they've said there has to be a special justification for overruling a precedent. There is a presumption that precedence will be followed. But it is not the -- the rule of stare decisis is not an inexorable command.


from Daily Kos