The courts will not restrain the surveillance state.
For generations politicians (on both sides) have drifted along, abandoning principle for demagogic political benefit secure in the belief that the courts would always step in to save us from ourselves.
They will not. The chains of precedent are now such that even liberal judges will sign off on almost any advancement of state, military and police power.
And mainstream politicians seem, as a class, pretty happy with maximal government power.
What then will slow the advance of the surveillance state? (To cite one area of concern.) This is a serious question. (We can stipulate that voting for Ron Paul is a bad idea.)
For instance, say we can get a Democratic president re-elected. Good so far. How do we ensure that the president will then appoint justices who are sufficiently supportive of civil liberties to radically rewrite precedent and undo a generation of erosion?
Saying that a president will pick “liberal” justices is insufficient. Not all liberals are radically opposed to erosion of civil liberties.
How would we effect the election of a president who would then propose and champion legislation to roll-back government power?
If the two parties happen to agree on something bad then what is the mechanism for change?
These are practical questions. How do we, as a nation, throw out the bath water without the baby? Thoughts?
= new reply since forum marked as read
