Intervention in NSA Lawsuit

An attorney named Debbie Schlussel, who appears to be more of a spokesmodel than a scholar (her bio notes proudly that her online fan club is the second largest, behind only Ann Coulter) ...

I gotta tell you, she might not match the screeching harpy quotient of a Coulter (who usually hovers between the levels of 'Nancy Grace' and 'wolverine caught in a leg-hold trap'), but she's way hotter, and that's gotta count for something.

Dave-

She appears to be just as much of a moonbat as Coulter. See what I just added to the post.

This woman has a law degree? From where, Billy Bob's Law School and Bait Shop?

Whoah, MSU sells bait at their law school? Neat!

Snarkily,

Jeff

Checked out some of her stuff. Very coo-coo for Cocoa Puffs. I she she's fed up with all the Hollywood racism in movies ... racism against whites. They are such an oppressed race, aren't they? But hey, she's a long time Mensa member, just like Vox Day, so who could argue?

But hey, she's a long time Mensa member, just like Vox Day, so who could argue?

To quote my high school principal, "Some of the smartest people I know are stupid."

It's funny that she lumps in Christopher Hitchens with the left wing. Hitchens is the next best thing to an apologist for the Bush administration's imperial goals in Iraq. Maybe she doesn't read his pieces in Slate.

It's funny that she lumps in Christopher Hitchens with the left wing

Hitchens has been purged from the right because of this suit.

after his years of Bush-licking, the left doesn't really want him either. i guess that makes him a maverick, or something.

Does this mean the jackasses at StoptheACLU actually WANT to be spied on? Or is it that their anti-ACLU blinders are so huge that they'll oppose anything the ACLU supports?

Schlussel is pretty hot, though. Aaah, what a pity.

All of this points out the absurdity of dividing everything so simply into "right" and "left". Hitchens did not suddenly become a conservative by supporting the war, any more than Pat Buchanan suddenly became a liberal by not supporting it. It's exactly this kind of simplistic thinking, particularly when you look at one issue in isolation, that make political discourse today such a ridiculous spectacle.

Schlussel was a fixture on Howard Stern's radio show for the past few years. I don't know if she's followed him to Sirius, but I would presume so. They would call her up or bring her into the studio to rant for a half hour or so, mainly about "jihadists". Her rhetoric appealed to Howards's jingoistic and militaristic streaks, especially after the Septemeber 11th attacks. I also got the sense, however, that she was a quasi-"Whack Pack" personality. Not in the same league as the Phelps family or Daniel Carver, of course, who have also appeared on the show. However, the show's principals did make fun of her quite a bit, particularly the fact that once she opens her mouth, she never, ever shuts up unless you hang up on her or usher her from the room. Artie Lang does a merciless impression of her shrieking about "JIHAD!" Amusing in a Howard Staern sort of way.

Since I live in Georgia and know all about Bob Barr, I am all too familar with how a simplistic label of left vs. right or conservative vs. liberal can lead to error when trying to predict a person's position on a given issue. However, the attempt to intervene in the spying suit is essentially in support of Bush's "war" on terrorism, which is all of a piece with the war in Iraq. Hitchens is a supporter of that war. That makes this group's attack on him seem odd to me.

But now that I think about it, I can see that if one is a mindless supporter of a person or policy how one might mindlessly attack anyone who does not support it, no matter what that person's position on any other policy might be. The mindless supporters certainly do not take that sort of situation to mean they should reexamine their own positions.

This sort of "Debbie does Intervening" inspires my cynicism. She, and i am sure most of the StoptheACLU folks, were brought up in that strange mysterious traditional school that teaches the conforming message. "If you act like us, and think like us, and agree with us, and do everything we do just like we do it, then it doesn't matter if we give up our rights and liberties. Only those who do not conform need to worry!" It is the same school that teaches: that lying is good if it is done for just the right reasons; and that all good patriotic honest citizens think and act exactly the same. It is somewhat like that strange proselytizing mantra: "even if you don't believe in god and heaven, just in case you are wrong you should believe."

Schlussel's got a thing about Hitchens because his views on Israel; she just denounced the Republican Jewish Coaltion for inviting him to speak: "Hitchens is exactly the type of speaker a self-hating anti-Israel Jewish group would invite to the table, not an allegedly Republican, allegedly Jewish one".

"Does this mean the jackasses at StoptheACLU actually WANT to be spied on?"

They claim they have nothing to hide (including, presumably, assets of any sort; these people as a group don't strike me as big earners), and that they therefore don't care. Of course, at the same time they constantly rail agianst the "communism" of the ACLU, despite government spying being supremely emblematic of a totalitarian state. To be charitable, these numb shits aren't especially skilled at working with multiple pieces of information at the same time or non-concrete thinking.

There are a few active topics over there about the El Tejon case. Their political acumen is bad enough, but when they try to delve into science they basically reveal themselves to be clinically retarded.

"...or is it that their anti-ACLU blinders are so huge that they'll oppose anything the ACLU supports?"

Absolutely. If the ACLU came out in favor of giving every illiterate wingnut blogger a million dollars, they'd yammer and screech about it, the irony soaring far, far over their heads.

Intervention??? You've got to be kidding. The named plaintiffs have an uphill battle to establish their own standing; I'd say that's less than an even money bet. And she wants to intervene? She must have been absent when that whole "case or controversy" thing was covered in Con Law. Amazing.

What I find amusing most of all is that intervention means you are named a party to the case. Now maybe I'm wrong and there's a third possible designation, but the only two parties I know of to a case are plaintiff and defendant. They can't be a plaintiff, so does that mean they want to be named as defendants in the case?

Putting the issue of "intervention" to one side, and returning to more substantive matters, I must disagree with Zachary; Schlussel looks very ordinary to me (not that there's anything wrong with that...). As far as knee-bucklingly cute legal eagles go, I have three words for you: Jan. Crawford. Greenburg. (Now on CBS!)

They can't be a plaintiff, so does that mean they want to be named as defendants in the case?

Great question, and obviously one that Schlussel hasn't stopped to contemplate. To have standing as an intervenor, there must be some interest one is seeking to protect. What, precisely, is the interest that Schlussel thinks she's going to protect that isn't already being adequately represented in the case? Alleged inherent Executive authority? Or the specific power to engage in warrantless surveillance? I suspect the Executive has those pretty well covered, but thanks, Ms. Schlussel, for playing. Perhaps she'll seek to represent that small but important constituency that wants to be warrantlessly surveilled. I'd be all for that. Someone clearly needs to keep an eye on what she's doing, warrant or no.

Come to think of it, there's the justification for warrantless surveillance: we need it so we can watch those who want to watch us without a warrant. It makes perfect sense, doesn't it? Wonder if I can intervene... .

I wonder if she's violating the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct with her solicitation of people to join her in her "intervention"?

She says on her website "I've already been contacted by concerned U.S. citizens who wish to intervene in the case as interested parties (whose interests and welfare are affected by this case) in support of the government's activities. And we may do so. You may feel free to contact me regarding this if you are interested in adding your name."

She's a member of the Michigan bar. The Michigan rules prohibit public communications about the lawyer's services which make "misleading" representations about the law (like the idea that intervention is possible here) (Rule 7.1a) or which are likely to create an unjustified expectation about the outcome of a legal action (such as the ability to intervene in the case)(7.1b)

Interesting possibility, Dan. But I doubt it's something that would actually be pursued in a complaint. Attorneys file motions that are highly unlikely to win in virtually every case. Still, she's soliciting people to get involved when they can't possibly think they actually have a chance of being granted a motion to intervene.