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.
Yes it would.
The better sight would be when the President issues a pre-emptive pardon from prosecution to any member of the NSA charged with whtever she thinks they'll be charged with.
They have made that abundantly obvious over the last five years.
Amazing. I perceive that a handful (or maybe only one) of these "judges" could have cost us WWII.
Except that Roosevelt would probably have paid little attention, or would have packed the court as he once threatened (to a total of 13)to get the decision he wanted.
Truman might or might not have paid attention to a judgement that endangered the U.S.
I especially appreciate this from the last sentence:
"...and we look forward to demonstrating on appeal the validity of this vital program".
I BET they do..rubbing hands in gleeful anticipation :)
For f**k's sake, who elected this bee-otch???????
Carter appointed her.
I have to do laundry before Mark comes on. Sigh
I WILL pi$$ on catah's headstone before I die!
LLS
Exactly! She should not be appealed. She should be ignored.
And by this Judge's logic, we should all be free to plot harm on our government or on US citizens.
After all, it's just words, and we are entitled to free speech, aren't we?
I would say this is a Judicial Coup D'etat. Carter is probably behind this.
Yes she can be impeached, but it requires the votes of 218 Members of Congress to impeach her, then the votes of 67 Senators to convict her. Unfortunately, Congress is unwilling to clean up the courts.
This is one more item which the Pubbies should use in telling about the dangers of allowing Dems back into power; they will appoint more people like this idiot.
Federal judges are not elected, they are appointed (for life) by the President, then confirmed by the Senate. This one was appointed by Carter.
This was not a nation of weenies during WWII. Any judge foolish to have made a ruling like this, then, would most likely have been impeached.
I guess Mark Levin is bucking to be President Rodham's Attorney General.
I am so sick and tired of NSA being dragged through the mud like this. I worked at NSA for 30 years, and am extremely proud of the their accomplishments during my time there.
Right after 9/11, they (we all know who "they" are) put the blame on NSA for not doing enough to prevent the attack. Now this BS. It just makes me sick... and angry!
Sorry for venting...
Mary
For instance you left out Carter's appointment of THE WORST EVER U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations: Andrew Young. What's worse Carter consistently defended Young, despite repeated outrages in which Young stood with America's enemies and vouchsafed the logic and rhetoric of moonbat anti-Americanism and extremist hatred. Carter was finally forced to fire Young after he met with a PLO representative in direct contravention, and open defiance, of United States law, but he never even tried to "reign him in".
Then there's Carter's empowering of Communist movements, and eventually Communist governments, in Central America. It took both of Reagan's terms to clean that mess up.
Carter is not just a shameful excuse for a President, he's a shameful excuse for an American citizen.
You forgot the eeeeevile laughter; and to close your tags:
MUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!</Karl Rove Mode>
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.