From NRO's The Corner:“SPY COURT JUDGE QUITS IN PROTEST” [Cliff May]I think this is an important consideration. Bush isn't Clinton in that he is concerned about his legacy but I do think he takes his constitutional duty to protect the citzenry very seriously.
This WP piece is likely to provide plenty of fodder today.
But read the whole story – it may explain why the president wanted to avoid the FISC.
He may have thought it both unnecessary and undesirable to ask permission of such judges in order to exercise his constitutional duties to protect the country and wage war against America’s enemies.
If he had acquiesced, if he had agreed that such judges represent a higher authority than that of the president, and Americans had been hit again as we were on 9/11, who would the public hold accountable? This judge and the FISA court? Or the president?
The operative rule is simple: Whoever has the responsibility must have the authority.
The question is a good one. In a post-9/11 world, if the United States were to be hit again and this program could have prevented it, who would the American people hold responsible? Clearly the Constitution places that responsibility on the desk of the President not some judge on a court nobody had ever heard of before the NYT article.
The president has the authority to act. He has the responsibility to act.
