Judge Not (NSA ruling-Mark Levin opinion)

NRO ^ | Mark (The Great One) Levin

[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.

[hattend]

bttt

[Rummyfan]

I know they're appointed. The point is that we are being ruled by a judicial oligarchy aginst whom we have no direct electoral course of action. This particular judge is a Carter appointee who has been on the bench since 1979. Twenty-seven years and she's still haunting us!

[3niner]

Twenty-seven years and she's still haunting us!

You're right that it's a big problem, but fixing it properly would probably take a constitutional ammendment, and that's probably going to be nearly impossible.

All we can do for now, is make sure that this issue affects out votes for our elected representatives.