Liberal, Activist Judge Rules For Bush Administration, Though, Of Course, He's Wrong

A federal judge ruled in New York today that a federal prosecutor could not inspect the phone records of two reporters for The New York Times in an effort to learn their confidential sources…

Judge Sweet, who was appointed by President Jimmy Carter, ruled that telephone records are the functional equivalent of testimony from the reporters themselves.

Sure, sure, I know—Judge Sweet is one of those activist judges the Preznit is always warning us about. And he was appointed by Jimmy Carter!

And, as all value votin’ Republicans know, Jimmy Carter, who graduated first in his class at Annapolis, had a distinguished Naval career, and was the most honest, most devoutly Christian man to ever reside in the White House, is, in fact, Satan.

Jimmy Carter’s post political career of building homes for the poor and advocating human rights around the globe pretty much proves that.

Jesus would never have been interested in that pinko crap.

Also, Jimmy Carter is a traitor. He’s been one a long time, and he just can’t stop working for “the other side”.

So, Judge Sweet has a lot going against him. But I still admire his expansive view of the Bill of Rights. To me, the Bill of Rights can’t get too big. Except for when it comes to morons thinking the right to a well regulated militia entitles them to have a rocket launcher in their homes.

But, anyway, much as I admire the traitorous appointee of Satan for his broad, expansive view of our rights, I gotta say:

Apparently Judge Sweet and his law clerks were absent the day they taught law at law school.

A phone record is no more compelled testimony against a defendant than a diary is, or a business record, or a letter, or saliva.

And all those things are admissible, discoverable evidence.

And telephone records have been used against millions of defendants. Most often, against the mob.

Comments

[Barak]

Ah yes. But a reporter is not a mobster. There are good reasons that a reporter's sources should be protected, while the same may not be true of a mobster.

They are not looking for evidence against the journalists, but rather evidence the journalist can provide.

The danger here is that the Bush administration is playing this from both sides. If they manage to compel the journalists to reveal their sources, they have taken down one of the few protections afforded to whistle blowers. If they don't, no one finds out who leaked. I think they look at it as a win-win. I think even if we win, we lose.

The Bushies have us played so that lefties are arguing against the first amendment. We can't go there, or they'll use it against us.

This is not the way we should be trying to find out who leaked the name.

[Barak]

Incidentally I had a discussion of this on my old blog here.

[ricky]

I hear you, Barak. But I just don't agree. I think a lot of people are worried about a "slippery slope"--that if a U.S. attorney can get a source regarding the Valery Plame matter, they can get a source regarding anything.

My response to that is: first of all, if they want it bad enough, they can. They always could. There is no "privilege" written into the U.S. code or the Constitution.

Second of all, any kind of privilige that is recognized is only recognized to the extent that it's in accord with the intent and spirit of the First Amendment.

The Founding Fathers didn't create a right to free speech just because they liked speech. They preserved the right to free speech because they recognized that certain kinds of speech were essential to the preservation of a democracy.

And certain other kinds of speech--threats of violence, inciting riots, pointless vulgarity--have never enjoyed protection under the First Amendment.

All kinds of professions claim privileges. But those privileges are not without limits. As an attorney, you can't claim a privilege where a client tells you of illegal activity unrelated to your representation. As a psychiatrist, you can't claim a privilege when a patient tells you of a realist desire to harm someone else.

And, as a journalist, you can't claim a privilege where a source reveals information to you that breaks the law and such information in no way furthers any reasonable public purpose.

The First Amendment is not a shield for libel. It's also not a shield for purposeless political assassination.