The term "tyrant" of course refers to lawless rule or arbitrary governing outside the rule of law. The justice charge was on the mark, for here is a rather remarkable confession from Mukasey's speech (linked) of post-9/11 government, which is precisely the point of criticism (and bracketed comments are mine):

Taken together, the Administration’s policies in the War on Terror represent nothing less than a fundamental reorganization [Ed. overthrow] of our government....the casual assumption among many in media, political, and legal circles that the Administration’s counter-terrorism policies have come at the expense of the rule of law [Ed. the Constitution].....As the me...

The term "tyrant" of course refers to lawless rule or arbitrary governing outside the rule of law. The justice charge was on the mark, for here is a rather remarkable confession from Mukasey's speech (linked) of post-9/11 government, which is precisely the point of criticism (and bracketed comments are mine):

Taken together, the Administration’s policies in the War on Terror represent nothing less than a fundamental reorganization [Ed. overthrow] of our government....the casual assumption among many in media, political, and legal circles that the Administration’s counter-terrorism policies have come at the expense of the rule of law [Ed. the Constitution].....As the members of this Society know, however, answering legal questions often involves a close reading and a critical analysis [Ed. to twist the meaning] of a text—the Constitution, statutes, judicial decisions, and the like. Regrettably, this point is much too often lost in the public discourse on the subject.

In other words, "we Federalists only know how the law reads and the Constitution should be interpreted, our massive 'reorganization of the government' and circumventing of the Constitution notwithstanding.

The Federalist Society while in name claiming to uphold the Constitution are the very ones overthrowing it through the "plea of necessity".

Let's see....preventing those who would kill Americans in ways that do nothing but protect the U.S. citizen or suppressing and threatening citizens who would ask the wrong question or seek to expose truths about arrogant leadership...........Hmmmm. That?....or This?
YUP! I'd say we've seen more potential tyranny in the recent Obama campaign.
The same hands pull his strings. There is no America any more. These are globalist powers of no country. If we go down that road you can't turn around and say the "other leadership" is NOT of the same agenda. A slow chipping away of the Constitution has been going on for decades, maybe more. When we remain a dupe in the game, one of the sheeple, a usefu...

Let's see....preventing those who would kill Americans in ways that do nothing but protect the U.S. citizen or suppressing and threatening citizens who would ask the wrong question or seek to expose truths about arrogant leadership...........Hmmmm. That?....or This?
YUP! I'd say we've seen more potential tyranny in the recent Obama campaign.
The same hands pull his strings. There is no America any more. These are globalist powers of no country. If we go down that road you can't turn around and say the "other leadership" is NOT of the same agenda. A slow chipping away of the Constitution has been going on for decades, maybe more. When we remain a dupe in the game, one of the sheeple, a useful idiot, is when we demonize one party attack then glorify the other. We "fall for" the facade. We go into denial over one party, then hold the other one responsible for all the ills. As long as we don't wake up to the reality, they can keep it playing out while pulling it right out from under us. There hasn't been a change in administration since Reagan. And they TRIED to get rid of him.(personal suspicion.). I think he was too naively and stubbornly independent refusing to recognize the supreme power of the globalists. When he said "freedom", that is really what he was talking about. The Bush/Clinton/Obama admin. entering its 21st year does not mean the same thing.