Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
One clarification (that might be a result of visions and confusions on my part, but I don't think so):
|
Interesting clarification, if correct.
What I'm trying to get a handle on is the perceived problem.
One is the supposed "abuse" of government power. That is, Scalia sent a marshall, to whom ordinary people don't have access, to enforce his silly rules. Similar objection therefore could be leveled if he sent a marshall to stand in line at the airport checkin, and then give him "frontsies" when Scalia arrived. Issue? None, I think, because he's been appointed to a position with certain perquisites.
The other is the supposed violation of the "freedom of the press" because they had a recording that they were forced to erase. But as I pointed out earlier, they had no "right" to the recording in the first place, in light of Scalia's long-standing policy.
To me, two nothings don't make a something.
