Monday, April 20, 2009

Michael Savage Sues DHS To Protect His Extremist Listeners

Janet Napolitano has only been in charge of the Department of Homeland Security for a few months, but she is already the target of a lawsuit brought by the wingnut radio commentator Michael Savage. Napolitano had a report released that showed extremist groups go after war vets and to Savage, that warrants litigation (frivolous lawsuit anyone?) to rile up his core listeners.

From ThinkProgress:

Last week, hate radio host Michael Savage, in conjunction with the Thomas More Law Center, filed a lawsuit against Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. They claim DHS has violated the plaintiffs’ First and Fifth Amendment rights by “attempting to chill their free speech, expressive association, and equal protection rights.” GWU Law Professor Orin Kerr responds:

Isn’t the lawsuit frivolous? As I read it, the lawsuit is claiming that the issuance of a government report criticizing certain groups violates the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. But the Constitution doesn’t provide a constitutional right to have the government not say things that might be considered criticism. Perhaps the plaintiffs want the Constitution to be radically reinterpreted by activist judges to invent some brand-new constitutional rights?

Today’s Progress Report has more here on what the DHS report actually says and how conservatives are reacting.

Now I'm sure Savage's narrow mind and short-term memory helps him forget people such as Timothy McVeigh but this lawsuit is out of control and a waste of time for any court's docket. And since Savage hasn't been one to shy away from the "frivolous lawsuit" debate we can tack on the label of hypocrisy to this stunt as well. Conservatives are all about tracking down terrorists in foreign countries and leaving them in unconstitutional prisons, but heaven forbid we examine where domestic terrorist groups recruit their members who blow up federal buildings.

I guess we wouldn't want to lose the support of the fanatics within the Republican party now would we?