We begin today's abbreviated pundit roundup with an editorial from The New York Times:
As Eric Lichtblau reported in The Times on Sunday, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has for years been developing what is effectively a secret and unchallenged body of law on core Fourth Amendment issues, producing lengthy classified rulings based on the arguments of the federal government — the only party allowed in the courtroom. [...] As outrageous as the blanket secrecy of the surveillance court is, we are equally troubled by the complete absence of any adversarial process, the heart of our legal system. [...]
Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, recently reintroduced a bill that would require declassification. It was defeated in December. In light of the national uproar over the most recent revelations, the leadership in Congress should push to pass it and begin to shine some light on this dark corner of the judicial system.
We don’t know what we’ll find. The surveillance court may be strictly adhering to the limits of the Fourth Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Or not. And that’s the problem: This court has morphed into an odd hybrid that seems to exist outside the justice system, even as its power grows in ways that we can’t see.
Meanwhile,
Daniel Ellsberg writes an op-ed in
The Washington Post arguing leaker Edward Snowden was right to flee the country:
Many people compare Edward Snowden to me unfavorably for leaving the country and seeking asylum, rather than facing trial as I did. I don’t agree. The country I stayed in was a different America, a long time ago.There is no chance that experience could be reproduced today, let alone that a trial could be terminated by the revelation of White House actions against a defendant that were clearly criminal in Richard Nixon’s era — and figured in his resignation in the face of impeachment — but are today all regarded as legal (including an attempt to “incapacitate me totally”).
I hope Snowden’s revelations will spark a movement to rescue our democracy, but he could not be part of that movement had he stayed here. There is zero chance that he would be allowed out on bail if he returned now and close to no chance that, had he not left the country, he would have been granted bail. Instead, he would be in a prison cell like Bradley Manning, incommunicado.
Do you agree?
Greg Sargent thinks Democrats need to step it up when it comes to revising the nation's spying laws:
Progressives and Dems who continue to care about this issue can push Democratic leaders to vocally call for more transparency around these opinions and to get behind the proposal being pushed by a bipartisan group of Senators, including progressive Jeff Merkley and Tea Partyer Mike Lee — and a companion measure in the House — that would compel the Obama administration to declassify and release them.
Here’s the current state of play so far: Most Democratic leaders have yet to take a public position on this legislation, according to a quick survey of their offices I undertook today
Head below the fold for more on the day's top stories.
Jonathan Bertstein surveys the land of filibuster reform:
The news is that, gradually, Democrats in the Senate seems to be concluding that different rules are needed for legislation, for judicial nominations and for executive-branch nominations. Democratic senators have already separated nominations from the legislative filibuster; now, according to reporting from Politico’s Burgess Everett, they’re considering the “nuclear option” only on executive-branch nominations.
This is pretty reasonable. The case for requiring a supermajority on lifetime positions to courts, especially policy-making appellate courts, is fairly strong, although that leaves open the question of what to do when a minority uses it (or, as the majority would say, abuses it) too often. That said, Republicans have defeated only a handful of judicial picks by filibuster. Most of their obstruction has been foot-dragging, not outright attempts to defeat nominees. That’s a significant problem, especially since it’s been expanded to district-court nominees, but it isn’t one that should be solved by eliminated filibusters, at least not if other options are available.
Dana Milbank on George W. Bush's media appearances:
For Bush, who has been under a self-imposed gag order for much of the time since he left office, this amounts to something of a reemergence. He’s planning to talk about immigration again Wednesday in a naturalization ceremony at his presidential center. It’s likely not a coincidence that he’s beginning to return to public view now that it’s safer to do so: More Americans are forgiving, or at least forgetting, what they didn’t like about him. [...]
It’s standard for former presidents to grow in public esteem as memories fade. In Bush’s case, the war in Iraq is over, the war in Afghanistan is winding down and the economy is finally recovering. But Bush’s rebound could be accelerated, particularly among Democrats, by the type of assist he gave Obama in the Karl interview.
Bush, never one to put himself on the couch, dismissed as “absurd psycho-babble” the notion that the good works he is doing in Africa is “to make up for mistakes you made in Iraq,” as Karl put it. But he seems to have grasped that his own place in history can be improved by generosity toward Africa — and magnanimity toward opponents.
What do you think?
Nanette Fondas at The Atlantic explains how paid family leave is good for everyone:
The Rhode Island legislature voted last week to pass a law to give workers paid time off to care for a new child or seriously ill or injured family member. If Governor Lincoln Chafee signs the bill into law as expected Rhode Island will become the third state with some type of paid family leave policy, after California and New Jersey. [...]
The impact of family leave legislation, whether state or federal, is felt well beyond the direct benefit an individual worker receives. Parental leave and similar policies hold potential to reduce workplace bias and stigma faced by all women and men with caregiving responsibilities. [...] A law signals to businesses a society's recognition that female and male employees alike have the right to be evaluated based on the results of their work performance only--not their status as a mother or father. Hence, paid family leave laws nudge managers toward fair and impartial treatment of employees, especially caregivers. This type of organizational culture usually boosts employee morale and loyalty, creating a beneficial cycle of productivity gains and improved profitability for organizations and greater job security for employees.
David Zirin gives us an inside look at that amazing people's filibuster in Texas:
In the category of sentences I never thought I’d write, there is this: When it comes to a thrilling televised spectacle nothing beats sports, except perhaps a filibuster in the Texas state senate. [...]First, Wendy Davis was removed from the floor on specious grounds. It looked to all of us that this awful vote was going to be pushed through just before the midnight deadline. Then it was stopped at 11:45 pm by what will now be known forever as “the People’s Filibuster.”
For fifteen minutes the spirit of Molly Ivins came alive and the kickass women of Texas—along with their male allies—raised their voices and prevented a travesty. As the clock ticked toward midnight, and the smug, anti-choice men of the Texas State Senate developed a deathly pallor, we started to count down like it was New Year’s Eve. On Twitter, even the normally apolitical sports bloggers I follow were zeroed in like it was the fourth quarter of the Super Bowl.