Anyone who has seen David Rivkin in action knows that he is a Bush apologist extraordinaire. Robert Levy of the CATO Institute I am not familiar with. They
debated Bush's shredding of the Constitution. Now, in my view, Levy fumbles a couple of questions and answers, but even then, Rivkin is routed.
I present it here for your consideration. And also to demonstrate how extreme Bush's actions are and what lackeys the "conservative" movement is with regard to Bush. Their argument is Bush did it, must be ok.
Update [2005-12-27 16:18:30 by Armando]: The funny part is Joshua Adler of The Corner, who
linked to the debate, writes:
The Federalist Society has posted the beginning of an exchange between frequent NRO contributor David Rivkin and the Cato Institute's Robert Levy on the domestic surveillance controversy. It's an interesting back and forth, and the FedSoc promises there is more to come.
Incidentally, this sort of exchange is one of the reasons I've been so involved with the Federalist Society over the years -- ever since attending portions of a FedSoc conference at the Yale Law School when I was an undergrad. Both Rivkin and Levy are FedSoc regulars, and yet they have profound disagreements over the Bush Administration's activities.
but he links to folks
"critiquing" me - even though Levy holds my views. That is the ultimate in an ad hominem approach to argument. Levy is a "great guy" (read Republican) so his argument is to be treated with respect. I make the same argument and Adler is "not impressed."
Frankly, a good argument is a good argument, and a bad one is a bad one, whoever it comes from. For instance, from
Orin Kerr, or Cass Sunstein.