Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Carter Judge slams Bush family in Kos-like language in NSA verdict
Anti-NSA Verdict - Full Statement ^ | August 17, 2006 | nwrep

Posted on 08/17/2006 7:44:30 PM PDT by nwrep

Carter appointee U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor has used the same kind of language that has become popular on left-wing blogs like Daily-Kos to slam the Bush family in the verdict she delivered today, declaring the NSA surveillance of terrorists unconstitutional.

In an irrelevant aside, she grabbed at the "King George" phrase thrown around in the left-wing blogosphere to launch a thinly-veiled attack on the President:

Our constitution was drafted by founders and ratified by a people who still held in vivid memory the image of King George III and his General Warrants.

In an allusion to the President's father, she went on, sounding like a DU member on hemp:

There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution.

Further, she actually excuses and defends communication with terrorists:

For example, scholars and journalists such as plaintiffs Tara McKelvey, Larry Diamond, and Barnett Rubin indicate that they must conduct extensive research in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, and must communicate with individuals abroad whom the United States government believes to be terrorist suspects or to be associated with terrorist organizations.12 In addition, attorneys Nancy Hollander, William Swor, Joshua Dratel, Mohammed Abdrabboh, and Nabih Ayad indicate that they must also communicate with individuals abroad whom the United States government believes to be terrorist suspects or to be associated with terrorist organizations,13 and must discuss confidential information over the phone and email with their international clients.

This judge is not fit to be so called. She has become a crack-whore for the terrorists.

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Front Page News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: activistjudge; annadiggstaylor; carterlegacy; judiciary; nsa; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-108 next last
To: onyx
Yes and yes.

BTW, the ACLU judged shopped, until they found this sedition piece of garbage.

41 posted on 08/17/2006 8:13:12 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

"In her ruling she said that it's ok for scholars and journalist to communicate with the enemies. "

Her statement say's they indicated they MUST communicat with blah blah. Now why would that be?


42 posted on 08/17/2006 8:16:19 PM PDT by chewydog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
Our constitution was drafted by founders and ratified by a people who still held in vivid memory the image of King George III and his General Warrants Benedict Arnold and other traitors.
43 posted on 08/17/2006 8:16:58 PM PDT by NewLand (Posting against liberalism since the 20th century!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
It's funny how she tossed the "data mining" program that every Tom, Dick and Harry expert vouched was for real but ruled on the Terrorist Surveillance Program that no one knows what it's really about other than there is a program that monitors terrorist. Her tossing the data mining program was merely an attempt to claim she was being fair and nonpolitical.
44 posted on 08/17/2006 8:17:35 PM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: nwrep

This is highly intemperate stuff, especially for a federal judge. And this preachy time reminds me of Jimmy Carter himself. Hey Jimmy, has Ronald Reagan finally stopped piling up the electoral votes in the 1980 election?


45 posted on 08/17/2006 8:17:40 PM PDT by kesg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
She's a nitwit; but a DANGEROUS nitwit.
46 posted on 08/17/2006 8:20:09 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: szweig
Not fast enough -- the print is already dry and on every paper in the World to the contrary. The truth just doesn't seem to ever have the impact of lies. (right Reuters/AP???)
47 posted on 08/17/2006 8:21:42 PM PDT by NordP (America: There are more Patriots than Punks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution.

So I assume this ruling eliminates most of the federal government then?

How nice to be rid of social security, medicare and the other onerous government programs we have been saddled with.

48 posted on 08/17/2006 8:22:32 PM PDT by Straight Vermonter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nwrep

Anna Diggs Taylor is now, as a result of this action, on the Democrats' short-list for Supreme Court nominee.

Imagine, if you can, having your life; that of your family; and that of the nation directly subject to this person.


49 posted on 08/17/2006 8:23:04 PM PDT by mtntop3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
Image and video hosting by TinyPic
TAYLOR
50 posted on 08/17/2006 8:23:43 PM PDT by Old Seadog (Inside every old person is a young person saying "WTF happened?".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
These brain-lame judgments only make sense by naming just who is responsible for their appointments. . .

Credit where credit is due; and the only way to understand what otherwise appears totally senseless.

Heard it first on Rush that we have Jimmy Carter to thank. . .and it was the 'missing piece' after that; with every mention of this news story.

51 posted on 08/17/2006 8:24:52 PM PDT by cricket (Live Liberal free. . .or suffer their consequences. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nwrep

This barking moonbat was born in 1932, per earlier postings.

I would think, at 74, she'd want to retire and enjoy life without the robes. Of course I'm dealing in common sense and she obviously is not.

I guess if you're on a mission for the left's ideology, you just never give up the bone. Once a junkyard dog, always a junkyard dog.


52 posted on 08/17/2006 8:25:09 PM PDT by mplsconservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right; IncPen
ARE YOU WITH ME!


53 posted on 08/17/2006 8:25:10 PM PDT by NordP (America: There are more Patriots than Punks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

Oh c'mon! I have seen the footage of Pearl Harbor being bombed! What are you a WWII denier?



LOL


54 posted on 08/17/2006 8:25:26 PM PDT by Straight Vermonter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: chewydog
Her explanation was that they need to call Al-Qaeda in private for research purposes. This is the dumbest crap I've heard in a long time. They have a right to talk to anyone they want but the government has a right to intercept anything to or from terrorist as ordered by the congress when they said to pursue them however necessary wherever necessary. The NSA can't get on the line and say "please hold your conversation Mr. Terrorist till I get this warrant".
55 posted on 08/17/2006 8:27:10 PM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
For the sake of America someone needs to overrule her and then promptly charge her with treason.

Charge her with treason? Do you know how stupid you sound? You are probably one of the few people in America who knows less about our laws and the Constitution than this poor excuse for a jurist.

56 posted on 08/17/2006 8:27:36 PM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Old Seadog
Taylor. . .ooohkay. . .
57 posted on 08/17/2006 8:27:45 PM PDT by cricket (Live Liberal free. . .or suffer their consequences. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: nwrep

Nominated by Jimmy Carter on May 17, 1979

Legislative assistant / Detroit office manager, U.S. Rep. Charles C. Diggs, Jr., 1967-70

Representative Charles C. Diggs, Jr. (Democrat, Michigan) 1955-1980

They married in 1960 and moved to Detroit.

Taylor, 73, is a liberal with Democratic roots and defended civil-rights workers in the South in the 1960s

Taylor was born Anna Katherine Johnston in 1932 in Washington, D.C. Her father was treasurer of Howard University. Her mother was a homemaker and a business teacher.

Unable to get a job as a lawyer at New York or Washington, D.C., law firms -- a near impossibility for black people, especially women, in the 1950s -- Taylor turned to the Solicitor's Office of the U.S. Department of Labor. She became a lawyer there with the help of J. Ernest Wilkins, then assistant secretary of labor and the first black person appointed to a subcabinet post. He also was a friend of her father's.

In Washington, Taylor met Charles Diggs Jr., son of a wealthy Detroit mortician and a rising star in Congress.

In 1966, Taylor became an assistant U.S. attorney in Detroit, but left the following year to manage her husband's Detroit congressional office.

During the next five years, she and Diggs divorced. She also campaigned for Coleman Young, helping him become Detroit's first black mayor.

In 1975, Young asked her to become a staff lawyer to defend his programs to integrate city government.

A year later, she married S. Martin Taylor, then director of the Michigan Employment Security Commission.

In 1984, Taylor banned nativity scenes on municipal property in Birmingham and Dearborn in ACLU lawsuits.

In 1979, Anna Diggs Taylor became the first black woman judge to be appointed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Nineteen years later, she became the first black woman Chief Judge for that circuit as well.

58 posted on 08/17/2006 8:30:00 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nwrep; Mo1; All

59 posted on 08/17/2006 8:32:32 PM PDT by hipaatwo (Vote for your life. Every vote for a Democrat (except Joe Lieberman) is a vote against victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
Each Plaintiff has alleged a “well founded belief” that he, she, or it, has been subjected to Defendants’ interceptions, and that the TSP not only injures them specifically and directly, but that the TSP substantially chills and impairs their constitutionally protected communications. Persons abroad who before the program spoke with them by telephone or internet will no longer do so.

Give me a break.

They think they've been monitored.

They think they know people who are engaged in acts of terrorism.

And those terrorists won't talk to them because the terrorists don't want to be discovered.

Are we at war, or not?

What is the usual treatment of private communication with the enemy in time of war?

60 posted on 08/17/2006 8:35:01 PM PDT by hocndoc (http://www.lifeethics.org/www.lifeethics.org/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-108 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson