"What happens when Hillary Clinton or someone more left gets into power and inherits all of these unlimited powers? What happens when they declare gun owners to be terrorists and bring to bear the full power of the electronic suveriliance and secrets court and warrants against them?" What happens when the President is no long someone you believe to be totally trustworthy and honerable, but corrupt and evil, and now armed with the unlimited power you gave not to Bush, but to the periodically changing position of the President?"
I've seen several people's eyes glaze over in a "oh my god I never thought of that" moment when asked this question.
Funny, I do the same thing to Democrats. I ask them why they are so upset about this redefining of the Presidency when they are likely to be the ones benefitting from it come 2008.
I've seen several people's eyes glaze over as well, though they usually follow it with a smile rather than 'Oh, $#!T'.
My hope is that everyone loudly decrying our 'lost rights' is still doing so when it's their favorite politician in the driver's seat. If you only object to these 'violations of our rights' because you think Bush is an ignorant chimp, but would have no problem with Hillary Clinton doing the same thing to our 2nd Amendment Rights, then you are a partisan hypocrite.
I don't believe many here are that intellectually dishonest, but among the vast majority of Americans...? I have to wonder.
The mother is being awarded fees for what amounts to malicious litigation, not for winning the case. The RIAA dragged her into court, causing her to spend money on legal defense, and then backed out. When you do that in America you frequently end up paying the other party's legal fees.
They pulled out precisely because they didn't want a prcedent set by the mother winning the case. They already got the daughter and had no need to push their luck.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Slashdot Mirror
The mother is being awarded fees for what amounts to malicious litigation, not for winning the case. The RIAA dragged her into court, causing her to spend money on legal defense, and then backed out. When you do that in America you frequently end up paying the other party's legal fees. They pulled out precisely because they didn't want a prcedent set by the mother winning the case. They already got the daughter and had no need to push their luck. Nothing to see here. Move along.