U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor
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 ...
Perfectly says it all
There are no Judge-Queens either. Time to vote on judges. She needs to go. Who does this judge think she IS?, making HER demands of the Presidency of this country? Disgusting.
An analysis of the background of the warrant requirement for surveillance is an insult to George Bush? Not buying it. This is exactly the type of language one finds in Scalia opinions, for instance.
Questioning Bush around here is seen as treason around here. It's frightening, really.
Questioning the president's ability to protect the country against terrorists by monitoring their phone calls is what is frightening.
Bush can order terrorists killed, but he can't listen in on their phone calls.
That's a non-sequitur if there ever was one.
Absolutely.
You and your "progressive" pals pop up on these boards and pretend you know everything about the Constitution but always seem to ignore the Presidential Obligations within the Constitution to keep America safe. Why is that? I'll answer for you; you're a know-it-all, Jack of all trades master of none.
U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor
I've been a tough critic of Bush on immigration and other issues, but here I absolutely agree. The President needs the ability to monitor communications involving al Qaeda.
In legalese, that unfortunately equates to about two years from now...
Hillary Rodham Clinton
So this judge has determined that saving 3,000 or more american citizens is just not worth the price of eaves dropping on the terrorists planning. Next Liberals will begin to embrace sharia law as centrist behavior.
The judge (lower case "J" intentional) would not like how the Founders and Ratifiers of the U.S. Constitution would have dealt with her and her kind. It boggles my mind the extent that these nitwits attempt to rewrite history to suit their purpose.
forget it... hes ona roll
Who said the Constitution is not a suicide pact? This is just part of the quote.
I don't think her personal views influenced this decision in the least, do you? (casual whistling...)
"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."
Sure they must do that. Absolutely. Go right ahead. Be my guest.
And we, the US Govt must *absolutely* guarantee that 9/11 doesnt happen again and must absolutely listen in while you talk to terrorists.
Capiche???
"When did Cindy Sheeham become a judge?"
When Jimmy Carter, er, Michael Moore, er, Ron Dellums, appointed her.
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.