I am not worried about the rise of the cultural conservatives. I am worried about the disappearance of an internationalist, pro-American business elite.

C.E.O.'s, M.I.A.

] A ransom note left behind included an e-mail address, and
] the attacker using the address later demanded $200 for
] the digital keys to unlock the files.

It was inevitable that someone would finally actually try cryptovirology. It doesn't work too well when you don't have a way of picking up the money...

CryptoVirus

] We find that evidence of appellant's Internet use and the
] existence of an encryption program on his computer was at
] least somewhat relevant to the state's case against him,"
] Judge R.A. Randall wrote in an opinion dated May 3.

The fact that PGP was present on a persons computer was considered relevent in this case. The mere fact that PGP was there makes it more likely that this person was involved in crime.

Minnesota court takes dim view of encryption | CNET News.com

The BBS Documentary is shipping...

BBS: The Documentary

] Article 2 Section 2 Clause 2: [Speaking about the powers of
] the president] He shall have Power, by and with the Advice
] and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two
] thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate,
] and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall
] appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls,
] Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the
] United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise
] provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the
] Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior
] Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the
] Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

So, what does this mean. John Jay Hooker, who, incidentally, believes that there ought to be a constitutional amendment to require a 2/3rds majority of the senate for judicial confirmations and wants to end lifetime appointments, thinks that judicial fillibusters are unconstitutional. His arguement is fairly persuasive.

The constitution requires a 2/3rd majority of the "senators present" to approve a treaty. It does not make this requirement for judicial appointments. It requires only consent. What does consent mean?

I've managed to think about this long enough that I can see both sides.

The most obvious meaning for a legislative body is a simple majority. This is the most plain and obvious way of thinking about this. The Consitution requires a simple majority for judicial confirmations. In that light, the fillibuster is unconstitutional, because it creates a super majority requirement.

On the other hand, if the framers intended to require a simple majority they might have said that specifically. They didn't. So, maybe it means whatever the Senate decides it means, as "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings..." Maybe the Senate can decide that consent means whatever they want in any situation where the constitution doesn't specify.

The danger of the later train of thinking is that I'm concerned that it is over thinking the issue. It might be sophistry. The constitution specifically mentions super majorities in situations where extra care must be taken (such as for impeachment.) The default case is obviously a simple majority. If it were "whatever the senate defines" then the senate could require unanimous consent for any legislative issue, which would create the preverse situation in which impeachment would require less consent then the passage of a simple law.

The danger of the former way of thinking is that if a simple majority is required for judicial nominations, then it may required for all other kinds of senate business. Now the filibuster has been a part of parlimentary proceedure for over 200 years. The idea that its unconstituional in general is rather radical thinking. You'd think this would have come up b... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

RE: Senators Reach Deal on Filibuster

] RONTLINE/World and BBC reporter Paul Kenyon travels deep
] into Iran to investigate charges that Iran is secretly
] developing a nuclear bomb. With exclusive access to a
] U.N. inspection team, Kenyon visits Iran's most sensitive
] nuclear sites and reports on the escalating diplomatic
] tensions surrounding the discovery of the facilities.

These guys are inside Iran trying to get away with filming aleged nuclear facilities under the nose of the secret police. I wish this report was longer and provided more context, but the footage is really interesting. Best quote: "You can't talk here, they'll kill you." The obvious unasked question is why is nuclear energy so important to OPEC's second largest oil producer. The words "natural gas power plant" come to mind.

FRONTLINE continues to kick ass...

] Cisco has released its VPN client for Tiger. This initial
] release does not yet support dual processor machines, but
] it will work on everything else with Mac OS X v10.4. Some
] relevant links: InfoWorld blog and Cisco VPN Client for
] Tiger (Requires CCO password access)"

MacSlash | Cisco VPN Client For Tiger

John Jay Hooker, the lawyer who delivered the most memorable comment at BlogNashville, has appeared in the blogosphere.

"You can't call a son-of-a-bitch a son-of-a-bitch without calling him a son-of-a-bitch."

John Jay Hooker Blog

Rule #1 of politics: When the wingnuts are up in arms they are probably being manipulated.

The filibuster agreement ends with this odd observation:

We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word 'advice' speaks to consultation between the Senate and the president with regard to the use of the president's power to make nominations. We encourage the executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.

Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.

Why did they close on this? What did this mean?

It means the Republicans never had any intention of approving Myers and Saad. Myers is simply unqualified. (Boston Globe in March: The standing committee on the federal judiciary of the American Bar Association reviewed Myers, and not a single member rated him "well qualified.") Questions have been raised about Saad's FBI background check.

However, if a Republican controlled Senate turned down one of Bush's nominees in an "up or down vote" Bush would have looked very bad. His appointees were so questionable his own party couldn't approve them! Thats not a tolerable political outcome.

So how do you handle that? You make a big scene. You make it look like you had to give these guys up in a fight over other nominations with the Democrats. That way you can go down screaming that they are qualified and professional, and Bush is not tarnished. Maybe he looks a little more to the right of center then he wants to, but he doesn't look bad. Maybe Frist takes a hit, but you have to wonder why the Conservative Christians would really care about this. They want people like Owen and Brown, not Myers and Saad.

Whether the Dems got played or were playing along is something I can't speculate on. Owen and Brown were their real targets. Brown in particular is an idealog who thinks that it is impossible for morality to exist outside of the framework of her personal world view. (Which is a dogmatic and silly perspective to have, no matter how eloquently she delivers it.) The Dems really got nothing here.

The question for the Republicans is how much control they have over the wingnuts now that they've gotten them all riled up and then handed them a "loss." They don't control the message in the blogosphere as well as they control it in the media. If their internet propaganda machine turns on their own moderate party members they may take a bigger black eye on this then they would have gotten had they simply embarrassed Bush in the first place.

The American people clearly want the Senate to take an active roll in nominations. In order to do that they are going to have to bork someone every once in a while. Was this big political show really necessary? I think Bush could have taken a loss on a couple nominations, and it would have made the party seem less partisan and more responsible.

This is an oped roundup from the weblogs. Its long but there are some interesting perspectives. I'll quote one:

] I don't mean to get all Rodney King-ish, but why must ALL
] commentary, from both politcal parties consist of "We won
] and they lost. Yay!" or "We lost and they won. Boo!" ???
] Is that it? Has there been a new civil war? Do we now
] have the Red States of America locked in a twisted,
] hateful, unfortunate geographically-required embrace with
] the rival Blue States of America? Is that how it works?
] Is there no possibility that (whatever your views, or
] whoever might have gotten a 51% advantage), perhaps a
] compromise is a good idea, you know, strictly from a
] 'civil war avoidance' perspective?

(The obvious answer is "What? Huh? We're being totally reasonable. Its the other guys who are nuts...")

Another:

] The Moose is not struck by irrational exuberance. Surely,
] Congress will soon return to its adolescent ways... But for
] one brief shining moment, our leaders acted as statesmen
] should during wartime.
]
] Let us savor the moment, however fleeting.

The Moderate Voice - Senate Moderates Avert Polarizing Filibuster Showdown