Posted on 08/17/2006 12:26:38 PM PDT by hipaatwo
Are there no limits to which activist judges won’t go to advance their political and policy agendas? Answer: No. I wrote an entire book about it. And U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, appointed in the twilight of the Carter administration, is the latest in a long list of disgraceful lawyers who abuse their power.
There are four things that strike me most about Taylor’s opinion. First, she grants standing to such plaintiffs as the ACLU, CAIR, Greenpeace, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Christopher Hitchens, and others, without a shred of information showing any connection between the plaintiffs’ assertions of constitutional violations and any harm to them. However, Taylor reveals herself in this excerpt from her ruling:
… [T]he court need not speculate upon the kind of activity the Plaintiffs want to engage in – they want to engage in conversations with individuals abroad without fear that their First Amendment rights are being infringed upon. Therefore, this court concludes that Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirement of alleging “actual or threatened injury” as a result of Defendants’ conduct
Taylor writes later:
Although this court is persuaded that Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient injury to establish standing, it is important to note that if the court were to deny standing based on the unsubstantiated minor distinctions drawn by Defendants, the President’s action in warrantless wiretapping, in contravention of FISA, Title III, and the First and Fourth Amendments, would be immunized from judicial scrutiny. …
In other words, if Taylor had ruled properly and found that the Plaintiffs had no standing to bring their lawsuit, she would have denied herself the ability to strike down the NSA intercept program by throwing out the lawsuit.
Second, Taylor fails to address adequately that which has been debated here and elsewhere for months, i.e., the president’s inherent constitutional powers as commander-in-chief, and the long line of court cases (and historical evidence) related to it.
Third, in many places, the opinion reads like a political screed.
Fourth, Taylor insists on the immediate implementation of her decision, meaning that the NSA must stop intercepting enemy communications at this very moment, unless it succeeds in getting judicial relief elsewhere.
The ACLU et al have won the day, as they often do these days when they take their agenda to our courts. Forum shopping works. The judiciary does not.
The opinion is here. (H/T: Andy McCarthy)
UPDATE: This from the Justice Department: "The parties have also agreed to a stay of the injunction until the District Court can hear the Department's motion for a stay pending appeal."
UPDATE II: Just to be clear, Taylor ruled that the president/NSA violated the FISA, Title III, the First and Fourth Amendments, and the Separation of Powers doctrine.
Her ruling is destined to rapidly become an obscure footnote. The Sixth is likely to overturn it.
thought I'd post this over here
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1685294/posts?page=290#290
from page 13 .. http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/eGov/taylorpdf/06%2010204.pdf
Contrary to Defendants’ arguments, the court is persuaded that Plaintiffs are able to establish a prima facie case based solely on Defendants’ public admissions regarding the TSP. Plaintiffs’ declarations establish that their communications would be monitored under the TSP.7 Further,
Plaintiffs have shown that because of the existence of the TSP, they have suffered a real and concrete harm. Plaintiffs’ declarations state undisputedly that they are stifled in their ability to vigorously conduct research, interact with sources, talk with clients and, in the case of the attorney Plaintiffs, uphold their oath of providing effective and ethical representation of their clients.8 In
addition, Plaintiffs have the additional injury of incurring substantial travel expenses as a result of
having to travel and meet with clients and others relevant to their cases. Therefore, the court finds that Plaintiffs need no additional facts to establish a prima facie case for any of their claims questioning the legality of the TSP.
"Blackrobed thieves and traitors"strike again!It is past time for America to thumb its nose at the courts.I hope Bush openly defies this order as it places our country at great risk.This quack judge should have her patriotism questioned.
Thousands of disposable cellphones have been purchased by illegal immigrants in HUGE numbers in recent months (as recent discoveries have shown).
How does one get a warrant for a wiretap on a specific disposable phone number and know which will be receiving a "future call"?
Well, after 10 years, it IS on everyone's mind.
Not like anyone is interested in hearing about Vince Foster. That's SO old.
Not sure- but it's likely. I'll be working til 7..will turn on his show when I'm off..at least get the last hour:)
And HERE'S what REALLY infuriated me- the judge wanted immediate implementaion of this- as in STAT, ASAP, NOW, THIS MINUTE. (But a stay to the injuction has been agreed to-while pending appeal)
It's mind-numbing. It's going to take a catastrophe to waken the left...if even that will do it..
Yeah, and?
Exactlty what stops them from engaging in converstations?
And BTW, I want to be able to brush my teeth when I get to California.
ML/NJ
Ruling info.
I fully blame the US media for the decapitation of Nick Berg.
He was kidnapped prior to the Abu Ghraib headlines so his kidnapping was not in revenge for AG. And the radicals never got any press for murdering anyone while Saddam ran Abu Ghraib and committed far worse attrocities.
And CNN admits they knew of abuse and torture under Saddam but remained quiet to keep their Baghdad bureau.
So the head of Nick Berg rests at their collective feet.
Are you KIDDING? It's all JonBenet, all the time...
Don't let me get started... ;)
Plaintiffs’ declarations establish that their communications would be monitored under the TSP.7...Plaintiffs’ declarations state undisputedly that they are stifled in their ability to vigorously conduct research, interact with sources, talk with clients...
Translation: we talk to terrorists. And we inist on doing so without the knowledge of America.
No one has asked the most pertinent question. How do we get this scumbag and scumbags like her' wearing judicial robes and making up the law as they go , the hell out of our system.
Can she be impeached,? can she be fired? can she be downgraded to traffic court?
What the left doesen't realize, is that they are pressuring us into to more draconian steps. You will see what I mean after the next 9/11. The left is so politically motivated to make W look bad, they don't care if they get all of us killed in the process.
Correction ... Translation: we talk to terrorists. And we inist on doing so without with the knowledgeCourt of America blessing of the US Federal Court
1. Yanked the rug out from under the Shah of Iran, allowing the ayatollahs to come to power, sack our embassy and take our people hostage for 444 days (until President Reagan took office).
2. Gave away the Panama Canal.
3. Damaged our national security by cutting funds for the military and our intelligence services.
4. Damaged the judiciary by appointing liberal activist judges like this moron. One of Carter's judicial appointees, Alcee Hastings, was later impeached and thrown off the bench for soliciting bribes. Hastings was later elected to Congress from a black-majority district in Florida.
5. Everything that Carter has touched since he left office has been sullied, and the stupid bastard doesn't have sense enough to keep his big, ignorant mouth shut.
You make an excellent point. If they'd worked with us like we are a TEAM...it would never have had to come to this nonsense...but their lust for power and hatred for the president are blinding them to the reality of terrorism.
They'll never see their responsibility for any of it either...
Jimmy Carter.... the gift that keeps on giving! Can't we go after the ACLU using the RICO statutes?
Here's hoping this idiotic decision will be OVERTURNED!
Wonder what Mark will lead off his show with this evening.....
Wiretapping Ruling: From the White House [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
STATEMENT BY THE PRESS SECRETARY
Last week America and the world received a stark reminder that terrorists are still plotting to attack our country and kill innocent people. Today a federal judge in Michigan has ruled that the Terrorist Surveillance Program ordered by the President to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the American people is unconstitutional and otherwise illegal. We couldn’t disagree more with this ruling, and the Justice Department will seek an immediate stay of the opinion and appeal. Until the Court has the opportunity to rule on a stay of the Court's ruling in a hearing now set for September 7, 2006, the parties have agreed that enforcement of the ruling will be stayed.
United States intelligence officials have confirmed that the program has helped stop terrorist attacks and saved American lives. The program is carefully administered, and only targets international phone calls coming into or out of the United States where one of the parties on the call is a suspected Al Qaeda or affiliated terrorist. The whole point is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks before they can be carried out. That’s what the American people expect from their government, and it is the President’s most solemn duty to ensure their protection.
The Terrorist Surveillance Program is firmly grounded in law and regularly reviewed to make sure steps are taken to protect civil liberties. The Terrorist Surveillance Program has proven to be one of our most critical and effective tools in the war against terrorism, and we look forward to demonstrating on appeal the validity of this vital program.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/
For f**k's sake, who elected this bee-otch???????
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.