Is George strongly grounded...?

on the one hand...

(NYT, 18 August)

...with a careful, thoroughly grounded opinion, one judge in Michigan has done what 535 members of Congress have so abysmally failed to do. She has reasserted the rule of law over a lawless administration and shown why issues of this kind belong within the constitutional process created more than two centuries ago to handle them.

but on the same hand...

(NYT, 19 August)

Even legal experts who agreed with a federal judge’s conclusion on Thursday that a National Security Agency surveillance program is unlawful were distancing themselves from the decision’s reasoning and rhetoric yesterday.

They said the opinion overlooked important precedents, failed to engage the government’s major arguments, used circular reasoning, substituted passion for analysis and did not even offer the best reasons for its own conclusions.

Discomfort with the quality of the decision is almost universal, said Howard J. Bashman, a Pennsylvania lawyer whose Web log provides comprehensive and nonpartisan reports on legal developments.

“It does appear,” Mr. Bashman said, “that folks on all sides of the spectrum, both those who support it and those who oppose it, say the decision is not strongly grounded in legal authority.”

then there's the third hand...

(NYT, 19 August)

President Bush predicted Friday that an appeals court would ultimately overturn a decision this week declaring his warrantless wiretapping program illegal, and he said that “those who herald this decision simply do not understand the nature of the world in which we live.”

ok, let's do a brief re-cap here... first, the decision IS thoroughly grounded... second, the decision ISN'T strongly grounded... third, george thinks that anybody who doesn't support his criminal spying activities simply doesn't understand today's world... taking a leap of logic, i would conclude that GEORGE isn't strongly grounded... anyone else care to take a crack at it...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet