HermanMunster Wrote:
Mar 06, 2013 7:00 PM
But that WAS the issue in the letter Holder wrote, it WAS hypothetical. And you can't deny that there are hypotheticals you would agree fit. Today he admitted that unless their was an imminent threat, it would be unconstitutional to "drone" someone. Look, if Paul feels this strongly about it, propose legislation to outlaw it. I would probably agree with him. But this filibuster looks like nothing but grandstanding. As I see it, what is he going to accomplish, what "rule" is going to be changed? And if you feel that this is so set in stone that you can't do it, then Brennan won't be able to do it. I'm sorry but it looks as if Paul is more interested in making a name for himself, then defending the Constitution.