Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

The NY Times/ACLU Homeland Security strategy

Michelle Malkin:

ALLOW me to sum up the homeland-security strategy of America's do-nothing brigade, led by the armchair generals at The New York Times and ACLU headquarters:

1) Bar law enforcement at all levels from taking race, ethnicity, national origin and religion into account when assessing radical Islamic terror threats. (But continue to allow the use of those factors to ensure "diversity" in public-college admissions, contracting, and police- and fire-department hiring.)

2) Institute the "Eenie meenie miny moe" random-search program at all subways, railways and bus stations.

3) Open the borders, sabotage all immigration enforcement efforts and scream "Racist" at any law-abiding American who protests.

4) Sue. Sue. Sue.

5) Yell "Connect the dots!" — while rebuilding and strengthening the walls that prevent information-sharing between the CIA, State Department, Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security and other key government agencies.

6) Hang the white flag and declare victory.

7) Sit back and wait to blame the president for failing to take aggressive, preventative measures when the next terrorist attack hits.

Repeat.

...

The left believes the government should do whatever it takes to fight terrorists — but only when the terrorists look like Timothy McVeigh. If you're on the MCI Friends and Family plan of Osama bin Laden and Abu Zubaydah, you're home free.

I think their position is a little more nuanced. They are saying that there were hoops to be jumped through before the dot connecting can begin. They are then confronted with the fact that the data mining technology used does not fit within the hoop jumping rules, leaving liberals in the position of saying that the dot connecting should not be done until after the terrorist attack. It is part of their old theme of opposing preemption when it comes to our enemies. It is a return to the "lawfare" approach over the warfare approach. To argue that the US should not be intercepting enemy communications with its agents in the US is assine, so the NY Times tries to stoke the paranoia of liberals and make them believe that the President is spying on all of us. I am pretty sure he is not. He has beter things to do than worry about what paranoid liberals are saying, and they have not been hesitant to say it to him directly through their media outlets.