[cynicom]

About time.

[over3Owithabrain]

Not starting out to be a good week - WMD, Patriot Act

[B Knotts]

Depends on what parts, but may be good news...

[goldstategop]

'Nother Liberal Judge Throws Up Roadblocks To The War On Terror. Film at 11.

[rhombus]

I'm still trying to find out what part of the Patriot Act. There are so many lies told about what it does and does not contain, it's hard to filter through it all.

[A Navy Vet]

Where at on their home page?

[JohnnyZ]

Upshot: you can help terrorists all you want to, tell them how to make chemical weapons, advise them which targets they should bomb, etc, etc.

[Young Rhino]

It is time for the executive branch to suggest that the legislative branch removes funding for the lower courts in the federal judiciary until the no-talent @ss clowns appointed by Clinton and Carter decide to quit legislating from the bench. While we're at it, the executive branch shouldn't invite left-wing members of the Supreme Court to any function whatsoever...stop propping up these crackpots with an air of respectability on the Washington cocktail circuit.

[TexasGunLover]

So sad... DIMRATS win again...

[Benjo]

I'm glad a federal judge somewhere finally stood up for the constitution. All you have to do is claim that some new law will protect us from terrorists these days and half the people in the country are willing to tear up the constitution and throw away free speech (which most people don't really value very much anyway, especially when they hear other people saying something they don't want to hear).

[b4its2late]

Could it be the 9th circus?

[jpl]

It's perfectly OK to restrict people's freedom of speech in the name of "campaign finance reform" though.

[verity]

Federal Judge Rules Part of Patriot Act Unconstitutional.

Meaningless if appealed.

[Eastbound]

Judge: "Nonsense! I don't see anything in the Patriot Act that is unconstitutional. Now go play golf or something."

(Clerk whispers to judge): 'But Judge! The dems brought this up!')

Judge: " . . . and to be pefectly clear, let me repeat that. It makes no sense not to call this unconstitutional. Now let's go play golf."

[Godfollow]

Sounds like redefining is what is being called for here... if there are vagaries in sections of the PA they'll be fixed and we'll have a better PA than when first introduced.

Frankly my dear...

[votelife]

Judges (and national security) are the two main reasons I support W. Here's a letter I sent him last year. I got a reply too.

Dear President Bush, With the Surpeme Court session getting ready to close, it may well be time for perhaps the most important domestic decision of your presidency: the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice(s). The main reason why I supported you in 2000 and why I wanted Daschle out of power in 02 (and 04) has to do with the courts. I want America courts to interpret law, not write law. During your presidential campaign you said Thomas and Scalia were your two model justices. Those are excellent models. The High Court needs more like them. Clarence Thomas recently said to students that the tough cases were when what he wanted to do was different from what the law said. And he goes by the law. This should be a model philosophy for our justices. Your father, President Bush lost his reelection campaign for 3 main reasosn, as far as I can see. 1. he broke the no new taxes pledge 2. David Souter 3. Clinton convinced people we were in a Bush recession (which we had already come out of by the time Clinton was getting sworn in)

I urge you to learn from all three of these: 1. on taxes, you're doing great. Awesome job on the tax cut. 2. good job so far on judicial appointments. I want to see more of a fight for Estrada, Owen, and Pickering, but I commend you on your nominations. 3. by staying engaged in the economic debate you'll serve yourself well

I have been thoroughly impressed with your handling of al Queida, Iraq, and terrorism. You have inspired confidence and have shown great leadership.

But I want to remind you that your Supreme Court pick(s) will be with us LONG after you have departed office. I urge you to avoid the tempation to find a "compromise" pick. Go for a Scalia or Thomas. Don't go for an O'Connor or Kennedy. To be specific, get someone who is pro-life. Roe v Wade is one of the worst court decisions I know of, and it's the perfect example of unrestrained judicial power.

I know the temptation will be tremendous on you to nominate a moderate. But remember who your true supporters are. I am not a important leader or politician. I am "simply" a citizen who has been an enthusiatic supporter of you. I am willing to accept compromise in many areas of government but I will watch your Court nomiantions extremely closely. What the Senate Dems are doing right now is disgusting, but as the President you have the bully pulpit to stop it. Democrats will back down if you turn up serious heat on them.

Moreover, I think public opinion is shifting towards the pro-life position. Dems will want you to nominate a moderate, but almost all will vote against you anyways. Pro-choice Repubs will likely still vote for you if you nominate a Scalia, after all, you campaigned on it. So Mr. President, I urge you to stick with your campaign statements and nominate justices who believe in judicial restraint, like Scalia and Thomas.

Happy Memorial Day and may God bless you and your family.

[yonif]

bars giving expert advice or assistance to groups designated foreign terrorist organizations.

Stupid ruling. Terror organizations should not receive any uplifting. This should have stayed.

[LandofLincoln]

You don't say.

[Steve_Seattle]

If vagueness and confusion render a law unconstitutional, then the entire U.S. tax code, as well as the campaign finance reform act, should be tossed out as well.

[StoneColdGOP]

Excellent.