[OXENinFLA]

Nolan admits that there aren't enough facts re NSA/FISA bruhaha to justifay reaching a conclusion - maybe, if she knew the facts, she says, she'd find the surveillance to "be okay."

Well, just take a look at what Chuckie said yesterday.

SCHUMER:I do have a few other issues that I do want to talk to you about. But, first, there's just a general question on presidential power.

Let's just assume that it was found that the president's right to wiretap people, the way we're discussing it now in terms of the recent NSA revelations, was found constitutional.

Would there be a different standard if, say, the president -- does that necessarily allow the president to then go ahead and go into people's homes here in America, American citizens, without a warrant?

Does the one necessarily lead to the other?

ALITO: I would have to understand -- I would have to see the ground for holding the wiretapping or the electronic surveillance constitutional before seeing whether it would apply in the case of other searches and seizures.

SCHUMER: But let's assume it is constitutional.

Because IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL!?!?

[Cboldt]

I noticed that exchange yesterday, and in my mind (I'm playing the part of Alito) the answer went ..

SCHUMER: Let's just assume that it was found that the president's right to wiretap people, the way we're discussing it now in terms of the recent NSA revelations, was found constitutional. Would there be a different standard if, say, the president -- does that necessarily allow the president to then go ahead and go into people's homes here in America, American citizens, without a warrant?

Does the one necessarily lead to the other?

ALITO: No. Authority to wiretap without a warrant does not necessarily lead to physical entry onto private property without a warrant.

Alito's answer was better, because it explained a broader range of possible circumstances.