You would think a lawyer would have some reverence or respect for leading law experts and those that specialize in areas of Constitutional and International law. But no, the authoritarian streak runs too deep. This is compounded and strengthened by a seriously dogmatic fundamentalist Christian mindset.
What you have a psychological profile that combines:
- Complete submission to authority
- Abject denial
- Suspension of professional logic and ethics where the world is filtered through a political/religious perception where the reality is: "either you're for us or you're against us."
- A high degree of self righteousness
- Rationalization and absolution from any and all failings of himself or his leaders gained in part through religious conviction (and his association with Bush to Christianity)
Can you imagine anyone in any profession denying, summarily refuting, and tossing off opinions of leading experts in their own field as invalid because they're a "bunch of Liberal(s)" ... with "a serious case of BDS."?
I mentioned the irregularities of Bush signing statements that have reserved the right to subvert over 1100 federal laws. (In the previous 20 years before Bush there were only 327 such statements issued).
You would think Ned would have some respect for the American Bar Association - the world's largest association of legal professionals, the body that accredits the very law school that granted him his law degree.
By a unanimous vote of the American Bar Association Board of Governors, a Blue Ribbon Task Force was formed with a cast of legal all-stars from BOTH political parties to investigate the Bush abuse of powers. This ABA task force described the Bush use of signing statements to modify the meaning of duly enacted laws as:
"contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers".When confronted with these findings that Bush had used signing statements to subvert laws such as the ban on torturing detainees, oversight provisions in the USA Patriot Act, "whistle-blower" protections for federal employees, and safeguards against political interference in taxpayer-funded research (... to name just a few), and when put in perspective that Bush has attempted to subvert more laws than all previous presidents combined, how does a true-blue right wing religious authoritarian lawyer Ned Williams respond:
"What is the mental disorder that sees an impeachable offense behind every tree?"
"...you ought to realize that lining up a bunch of Liberal attorneys on a given legal position doesn't prove much of anything--except perhaps a serious case of BDS. "
Further, I cited the HARVARD INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL on Bush's use of torture and detention:
"There are too many crimes and blunders to choose among. I will focus here on one central disaster, the use made of the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, and one egregious constitutional violation, the abrogation of habeas corpus."This is just one of many impeachable offenses of the Bush Administration, but none of these expert legal opinions are valid to a true Bushie authoritarian - even to a guy like Ned, smart enough to know.
-- Gerald L. Neuman, J. Sinclair Armstrong Professor of International, Foreign, and Comparative Law at Harvard Law School.
So, if you ask, how is Bush able to get away with so many violations to law and the Constitution? Now you know the mindset that has made it possible - the type of mindset that remains oblivious to the potential consequences of the erosion of American democratic sovereignty.
Not alot of wisdom or deep thinking among authoritarians. They will either: deny, refuse to admit, blame someone else, or say 'they did it too'. That's about as deep as it goes. But, as we all know, the gig is up.