3 ms·

It isn't relevant, though. The PATRIOT Act had pretty broad support. Just because she helped write it doesn't mean that she supports it more than other lawyers

It isn't relevant, though. The PATRIOT Act had pretty broad support. Just because she helped write it doesn't mean that she supports it more than other lawyers – just that she's a talented enough lawyer to be working on such major projects. It's the same as complaining about individual multi-millionaires who optimize their taxes.

istjohn 8y ago
A popular poor decision is still a poor decision. We censure plenty of actions in history that were popular at the time. We should require people in positions of power and influence to be guided by an inner moral compass--not merely whatever is profitable, popular, or personally advantageous.
Barrin92 8y ago
I think you can deduce some things from the projects people are willing to work on. If I was a lawyer say, I wouldn't have worked on it (and I categorically reject work on privacy violating systems as a software engineer), because it would feel to me like doing my part in enabling a surveillance system that is very, very, objectionable. So at least what we can say I guess is that she doesn't mind doing that. And I think the same goes for multi-millionaires. I would not hire a tax-dodging rich individual (optimization is a nice euphemism), and particularly not when I run a business where that is in conflict with the alleged values of the business.
whytaka 8y ago
> The PATRIOT Act had pretty broad support. By whom? Congress, constitutional lawyers, or the people?
- mdorazio 8y ago
  Sadly, both Congress and the people at the time [1][2]. It was full-on panic mode in response to 9/11. I don't remember much about the constitutional lawyer side at the time. A couple years later the public started changing its mind [3], though Congress arguably still isn't even close. [1] https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2001/s313 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2001/s313 [2] http://www.sheldensays.com/debating_the_usa_patriot_act.htm http://www.sheldensays.com/debating_the_usa_patriot_act.htm [3] https://news.gallup.com/poll/9205/public-little-concerned-about-patriot-act.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/9205/public-little-concerned-ab...

istjohn 8y ago

A popular poor decision is still a poor decision. We censure plenty of actions in history that were popular at the time. We should require people in positions of power and influence to be guided by an inner moral compass--not merely whatever is profitable, popular, or personally advantageous.

Barrin92 8y ago

I think you can deduce some things from the projects people are willing to work on. If I was a lawyer say, I wouldn't have worked on it (and I categorically reject work on privacy violating systems as a software engineer), because it would feel to me like doing my part in enabling a surveillance system that is very, very, objectionable. So at least what we can say I guess is that she doesn't mind doing that. And I think the same goes for multi-millionaires. I would not hire a tax-dodging rich individual (optimization is a nice euphemism), and particularly not when I run a business where that is in conflict with the alleged values of the business.

whytaka 8y ago

> The PATRIOT Act had pretty broad support. By whom? Congress, constitutional lawyers, or the people?

mdorazio 8y ago
Sadly, both Congress and the people at the time [1][2]. It was full-on panic mode in response to 9/11. I don't remember much about the constitutional lawyer side at the time. A couple years later the public started changing its mind [3], though Congress arguably still isn't even close. [1] https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2001/s313 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2001/s313 [2] http://www.sheldensays.com/debating_the_usa_patriot_act.htm http://www.sheldensays.com/debating_the_usa_patriot_act.htm [3] https://news.gallup.com/poll/9205/public-little-concerned-about-patriot-act.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/9205/public-little-concerned-ab...