ACLU Blog Meltdown: Losing Faith in the Soul Sucking Senate
Posted on July 9, 2008
Amanda Simon explains the disappointment at the ACLU Blog.
After the amendments were effectively killed – along with any possible hope of court review of the president’s illegal and unconstitutional domestic spying program (can’t say that enough) – the votes for final passage were counted.
The votes were cast and so was the dye. Final count: 69 to 28.
I can only say it’s been emotional. This isn’t the last you’ll be hearing from the ACLU on this subject — in fact, far from it. Keep an eye on this space for our continued and tireless work protecting the Fourth Amendment (and all the other ones, too, come to think of it).
Hey Amanda? How do you cast a “dye”?…and wow Amanda! The Senate Has Nearly Sucked Out My Soul!???? Can we get some duct tape for this girl’s head? Can someone tell her how to save her soul?
More from Suzanne Ito:
I was once sitting on plane waiting for it to taxi to the gate, chatting on my phone to my cousin about work, and the word “terrorist” nearly escaped my lips. I did catch myself, but that’s the chilling effect. It’s self-censorship, and thanks to Congress’s capitulation today to the White House, all Americans who talk on the phone or email will know it well.
So say good-bye to the Fourth Amendment. Nice knowin’ ya!
Heh. Isn’t it fun to watch the left melt down?
Ed Morrissey has the question of the day. Did Hillary submarine Obama on this vote?
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, News, Uncategorized
Trackback URL
Comments
20 Responses to “ACLU Blog Meltdown: Losing Faith in the Soul Sucking Senate”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
“The votes were cast and so was the dye. Final count: 69 to 28.” Thought it was ‘die’? Or maybe she was having her hair done.
I think that Amanda means “die” as in “casting a die,” like the manufacturing term from which that stems. But, then again she could actually mean what she said as in “I am so stupid, I have no idea what the Hell I am talking about. Hence, I blog for the ACLU.”
I am also sure that it has been emotional for her, because it certainly hasn’t been intellectual at all.
Just saying.
I always thought “casting a die” was what you did at a crapshoot.
Be nice if the ACLU devoted some of their tireless work protecting the second amendment.
“I am also sure that it has been emotional for her, because it certainly hasn’t been intellectual at all.”
LOL, Brilliant!
Thanks, mAd, I’m here all week. Remember to tip your waitress.
Um, maybe you cast a “dye” by using “duck” tape.
Ouch! You got me! Look at the pye in my face.
Why am I the one to point out, that if this were done under a Democratic President, the Republicans would be fighting tooth and nail against it. It’s a joke. Much like when Janet Reno’s Justice Department tried to slam through the Congress and early version of the Patriot Act back in 97/98. We fought against it then, but since the Republicans have one of there own in office. Oh well.
By the way, it is an invasion of privacy. And a direct assult on the 4thAmendment and the 10th Amnedment. That’s my reading of the Constitution. Granted, I’m sure one of you will point to me some kind of “case law”, but like my Evangelical Friends take the entire Bible literally, I take the Bill of Rigts at it’s words.
What a sad day it is, when I see fellow “conservatives” cheering on for more Government.
Ron, I haven’t read the bill so I have no clue what it says, I am a moron that couldn’t understand the legalese, much like Barry Obama. But, I find much humor in the ridiculousness of anyone thinking that letting the FISA stuff expire is a good idea or who is for punishing phone companies for doing exactly what their government tells them to do.
You know, something keeps reminding me that Muslims want the Westerners dead and listening in on their phone calls helps us kill them instead. To most of us, that is a good thing. Maybe you should not use your cell phone for illegal activity. But also, if memory serves, Democrat operatives kinda followed Newt around with a scanner to tape his calls. Did anyone go to jail for that hugely illegal activity?
Thats rich. A right to privacy isn’t even expressly included in the Constitution. Instead it was implied by the Supreme Court in 1965. Nice “literal” reading of the Constitution.
Although, I do hear what you are saying about not wanting more government. However, I think one of the only areas government should have a significant presence in is security. Fortuantely I don’t plan on making or receivng any calls from people on terrorist watch lists.
As to your speculation as to whether it would be supported if a Democrat was in office, I guess we’ll never know. Will a Democrat controlled Congress be enough for you?
Perhaps O can fix poor little Amanda’s soul…
“…That is why I am here, because Barack Obama is the only person in this who understands that. That before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation.” - M.O.
…or maybe not.
Heh.
Two Dogs…I see you’re point my friend.But the “right to privacy” in the 4th Amendment is there. And yes, the 10th Amendment. That Amendment as been trashed more than any of them, in my opion.
And Phil…What did I say that makes you think I’m a Democrat? Honestly, what did I say? Was it my defense of the 4th Amendment or, my veiled attempt to say the 10th Amendmend makes clear the Feds don’t have this much power. I.E.States Rights. …Now again, did I say anything slightly Leftist?
By the, I’m a Libertarian, who once was a proud Republican.
Ron, sorry, I agree with phillipe, I can certainly read and the “right to privacy” is not in the Constitution, no matter what any court says.
But, I assume that your conception of “right to privacy” is about the unreasonable search and seizure. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on what is exactly a “reasonable” search. Personally, I think that if you are Muslim, any investigation is reasonable, including questioning you with a baseball bat, making you form pyramids with your fellow terrorists, covering you in pork rinds, and making mean dogs bark at you, but I am sure that there are plenty of people on the Right that would still disagree with me. I am certainly not prejudiced against Muslims, I am saying that I believe them when they say that they want all of us dead. I think that they are honest about that.
As far as the 10th, are you saying that if the states (instead of the Fed) passed legislation saying that it was okay to tap your phone without a warrant, that you are cool with that? Because in my limited understanding of legal stuff, it seems that the political climate that we have now, the ACLU and their ilk have taken to slashing apart state legislation on anything that they find disagreeable. Including not killing child rapists.
Ron - I understand you are not a leftist/Democrat. I’m sorry for the unintended insult. I was just commenting that this Bill is being passed in a Democrat controlled Congress.
However, it really irks me when people (not even you necessarily) name drop the 4th Amendment as a blanket cover to whatever their agenda might be. Even if the Supreme Court declares FISA constitutional (which I have my reservations considering the 4 dissenting votes in the Heller opinion), then the rhetoric will become that the COURTS now don’t know anything about the 4th Amendment, not just the President.
Because of the national nature of the telecom industry, this might fall under the Feds Commerce power, but my knowledge of Con law is really shaky when it comes to that area so I can not say for certain. With Stevens first deciding on his ruling and then working backwards to come up with reasoning, you might even end up being right.
Of course it is an invasion of a privacy right, but when the cops smell a meth lab in your basement and kick in the door, that is also, not-so-technically, an invasion of your privacy, right? Should the cops not be able to kick in the door in such a circumstance simply because it is an “invasion of privacy”? Of course not.
Whether or not tapping a phone call is an invasion of privacy is sort of moot. There are lots of times when the government surely has a right to invade your privacy, so that cannot, alone, be the standard. The question is: where do we draw the line - when does the invasion become too much?
When they are listening to phone calls of would-be terrorists, that’s on the “OK” side of the line.
And I think “casting the dye” is actually correct… With printing, and art, etc., I think you can lay down a print, or whatever, and then throw in the color, or the ink, er, “cast the dye.” It’s sort of making it permanent, or something…
“and I think casting the dye is actually correct”
NFW. Many people think this expressiion is related to die casting (a metal template molding process). The origin of the expression is much older. Its from
Julius Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon river. The “die” is a gambling die, and “cast” means thrown. The
phrase means “An irrevocable decision has been made. Doesn’t anyone take Latin anymore?
adk46er, thanks for the history, I was one of those that just always assumed it was about tool-making. But, the spelling is still “die.”
Ha, I said “tool.”
heheheheheh.
I understand why there is some confusion about the origin of the expression: THE DIE HAS BEEN CAST, since once you’ve made the mold you can’t go back…
in any event dye casting or casting the dye makes no sense at all and with all due respect to PrivatePig, the idea the expression commonly used for an irrevocable decision has anything to do with printing is pure BS.