I think, is the blatant disregard for the ex post facto clause. I'm not a very active activist, but the wiretap thing on top of this got me riled up enough to write to the local papers. These bills are written to remove rights from people retroactively, flying in the face of the most basic principles of fairness we learn in kindergarten. My letter was in the Freeman on Sunday, and somewhat grammatically garbled in the Journal today. (I tried to learn from my last experience with the Journal and made a point of simplifying my sentences to avoid misinterpretation. The editor smooshed them right back into the complex mishmash I had originally written, apparently to save a few characters to make room for an unnecessary qualifier to soft-pedal my statement. In the process, she changed a passive verb to active without giving it a new subject, making it appear that I was bizarrely anthropomorphizing the law.)

I hold out hope that the courts will strike the retroactive provisions of these laws. I tend to doubt even Scalia is enough of a bully to dangle habeas rights in front of a prisoner only to snatch them back.