Maybe there is some hope. No thanks to the left-wing bloggers who are obsessed with some old queen who can’t get his dick up anyway.

Griper Blade: Bush’s only Legal Argument for the Detainee Bill; The Supreme Court Doesn’t Exist
The Mark Foley scandal has been media wallpaper lately. I watched yesterday as Foley’s lawyer dropped the ‘bombshell’ that he’s gay. This ranks right up there among earth shattering revelations like Bush’s observation, “The United States and China are two nations divided by a vast ocean.”

But, beyond all of this, other things are happening in Washington or, in this case, not happening. On September 21, Bush announced, “I want to thank the members of the United States Senate for working with my administration to meet our top legislative priority, and that is a law that will help us crack the terror network and to save American lives.” Bush had his legislation to torture detainees and keep them locked up without trial. Huzzah for freedom…

On the 29th, congress sent Bush the bill, which Associated Press said, “…he was expected to do very soon.” Most expected him to sign it over the weekend.

So where is it?

Sure, the media spotlight has shifted to Foley, but why would that make any difference? If the bill is needed to save american lives, as the President tells us, why is he sitting on it?

Part of the problem may be that there’s almost no way the law will stand up in court. Before the bill passed, Sen. Russ Feingold delivered his statement of opposition to it.

Under this legislation, some individuals, at the designation of the executive branch alone, could be picked up, even in the United States, and held indefinitely without trial and without any access whatsoever to the courts. They would not be able to call upon the laws of our great nation to challenge their detention because they would have been put outside the reach of the law.

Mr. President, that is unacceptable, and it almost surely violates our Constitution. But that determination will take years of protracted litigation.

It looks like Feingold may have been overly pessimistic. Where Russ sees a life expectancy measured in years, others see it much closer to death.