You are falling into the lib trap of saying that anything the executive branch talks about amongst themselves is open for congressional scrutiny. It is not.

Methinks that this could be pushed up to the Supreme Court. If the libs lose that, what a black eye to congress and oversight.

Much to the joy of future presidents, of both stripes.
xranger | 07.26.07 - 4:56 pm | #

Not necessarily, I've seen that argument before, which, just merely clarifies how the law is right now. Since no president has abused the law to this degree, we've not had the opportunity to find out.

So, I'll even take that battle head on. If the supreme court wants to back it, so be it. You think that law can't be changed? Not with a severely pissed Democratic majority and once we get a Dem in the White House?

Personally, and here's a more personal question, X, why would you support any kind of executive privelege? I mean pretend, it's Hillary, and I'm not saying this for the sake of saying this, i really want you to take the most vile reprehensible Democratic president you can think of, real or fictional, and imagine them with this same level of power.

How is that good?

I'm of the mind that if the executive privelege is truly this strong, it needs to be retooled and in a major way.
Kyle E. Moore | Homepage | 07.26.07 - 5:04 pm | #

Kyle,

Jules Critterman just called you out on this one...
Mikey T. | Homepage | 07.27.07 - 9:20 am | #

I... uh... know... Um... that's what sparked the whole post.
Mr. M | Homepage | 07.27.07 - 9:26 am | #