Bush's respect for the Supreme Court and privacy

[scaeagles]

I have to say that I don't see a point to this, but don't find it as outrageous as some. I won't go off topic, but this is pretty small potatoes to me. I can think of other things Bush has done that are a much bigger threat to free speech and privacy.

As far as bringing up something that has already gone before the supreme court....this is not uncommon. Cases are re-presented under varying circumstances all the time. Honestly, I have no idea if there are other circumstances at play here, but I say who cares? Just to poke a bit, and it certainly wasn't the right thing to do, most dems (not to say GD is operating from that standpoint at all, but in the government I would suspect dems will be the ones most loudly objecting) saw no problem with getting Robert Borks video rental history. I didn't like it then, and I don't see a point to pursuing this course of action, but I also don't see a major threat from it. I know, I know....slippery slope and all. But isn't that why there is a court? If the request is denied or a law struck down again or whatever, then the system worked just fine.

And yeah, GC.....the plantation thing was ridiculous, and I do regard AL Jazeera playing a tape of bin Laden calling for a truce as a bit more important, but those things aren't the subject of the thread.