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 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-108 next last
To: nwrep

This is going to be kicked so far out of the SC it may not come down on Pluto. How did this Moron get through college....nevermind.

Pray for King George III and Our Troops
Shalom Israel


81 posted on 08/17/2006 10:05:45 PM PDT by bray (Bring Back Bibi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jude24

An analysis of the background "

You dont get it. That is not 'analysis', it's merely rhetoric, that plays off the common first name of our current President and the colonies last British King.

Analysis would require explaining why warrants are required now, when they have never before been required for foreign surveillence (these are international communications).

Do you recall the courts requiring warrants for our spying of Japanese communications in WWII????


82 posted on 08/17/2006 10:09:31 PM PDT by WOSG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: soupcon

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

"Ummm...you can't get high on hemp. Not very, anyway."

You're obviously NOT a DU member.
It doesnt take much to get them fully hallucinatory.


83 posted on 08/17/2006 10:11:57 PM PDT by WOSG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
She thought she was composing a respected opinion when she wrote:
"{plaintiffs}...must communicate with individuals abroad whom the United States government believes to be terrorist suspects or to be associated with terrorist organizations.

What she was really doing is writing the script for a (R) election ad.

84 posted on 08/17/2006 11:07:22 PM PDT by TeleStraightShooter (The Right To Take Life is NOT a Constitutional "Liberty" protected by the 14th Amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: nopardons

"She's a TRAITOR."

No, she is just one more glaring example of the kind of stupidity rewarded by affirmative action. She is to be pitied. After a short pity party, she should be impeached.


85 posted on 08/18/2006 1:07:46 AM PDT by thelastvirgil (Incumbent politicians: PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: thelastvirgil

She should be impeached NOW!


86 posted on 08/18/2006 1:12:30 AM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: nwrep

bookmark


87 posted on 08/18/2006 1:35:08 AM PDT by GiovannaNicoletta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: soupcon
Ummm...you can't get high on hemp.

Well, that depends on how high the gallows are.

88 posted on 08/18/2006 1:39:39 AM PDT by Fresh Wind (Democrats are guilty of whatever they scream the loudest about.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
There are no hereditary Kings in America...

... unless your name is Clinton or Kennedy.

89 posted on 08/18/2006 1:44:01 AM PDT by Fresh Wind (Democrats are guilty of whatever they scream the loudest about.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
The woman is clearly an idiot.

Bush needs to find a workaround--but whatever happens, in effect, the ruling needs to be ignored. Anna Diggs Traitor isn't charged with protecting America from terrorism, so she can shove it as far as I'm concerned.

Oh, and that goes for the ACLU too.

90 posted on 08/18/2006 2:05:22 AM PDT by Recovering_Democrat (I am SO glad to no longer be associated with the party of "dependence on government"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nopardons

"She should be impeached NOW!"

Agreed, but the political reality is that the gutless, do-nothing congress will not be able to find the time for an impeachment. Hell, they've got bacon to be makin', and vital bloviating to do.

We should start a list of affirmative action disasters; people that attained high positions simply because of their race, sex, or (enter choice of victimization here) _____________.

I'll kick off the list with Colin Powell.


91 posted on 08/18/2006 4:05:34 AM PDT by thelastvirgil (Incumbent politicians: PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: mariabush
A vote for Jimmy Carter just never ends!!!!!! How long do we have to pay for our stupidity?

Oh, I drag it out and watch my husband squirm every few months. I'd say it'll be good for years more of fun.

92 posted on 08/18/2006 5:31:50 AM PDT by patriciaruth (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1562436/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: patriciaruth
I might as well laugh. I can't believe that I was dumb enough to vote for the idiot!
93 posted on 08/18/2006 5:40:35 AM PDT by Coldwater Creek ("Over there, over there, We won't be back 'til it's over Over there.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
Not only a shame, but a sham.

Can we say PREJUDICE?

This plethora of execrable judicial violations, are grounds for her impeachment.

What is especially ironic, the attack on the surveillance program intended to hit at Bush...was actually also conducted (with impunity) by the President that appointed her...Jimmy Carter...and again by her hero, Bill Clinton.

94 posted on 08/18/2006 5:40:55 AM PDT by Paul Ross (We cannot be for lawful ordinances and for an alien conspiracy at one and the same moment.-Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jude24

I didn't know that Scalia made decisions like this one, or does he talk like this but doesn't go there from here?

I understand are "a progressive - not in the silly sense of college kids who think they know it all and therefore support whatever the cause de jour is, but in the sense that I believe that the purpose of government is to protect the little guy (specifically, the poor and the middle class) against foreign enemies, domestic crime, and large corporate interests."

I thought the purpose of government was to give equal protection under the law to everyone (including corporations) and not to establish preferential treatment for the victim de jour.


95 posted on 08/18/2006 5:43:49 AM PDT by patriciaruth (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1562436/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: mariabush

Carter is the gift that keeps on giving.

If he'd just stuck with Habitats for Humanity he wouldn't be constantly reminding hubby that his vote for him was really a vote for a meddler for life, and a nasty mouthed one at that.

Do you have a loved one who happily refuses to give you absolution, too?


96 posted on 08/18/2006 5:50:17 AM PDT by patriciaruth (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1562436/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: patriciaruth

My husband and the kids!

Last time that we divided the vote!


97 posted on 08/18/2006 5:55:34 AM PDT by Coldwater Creek ("Over there, over there, We won't be back 'til it's over Over there.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: mariabush

You can fool some of the people all of the time (Democrats), and all the people some of the time (monolithic media consumers), but you can't fool all of the people all of the time (mariabush and my hubby).


98 posted on 08/18/2006 6:00:15 AM PDT by patriciaruth (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1562436/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: kcvl

Wow, uncanny!


99 posted on 08/18/2006 6:10:54 AM PDT by jdm (I gotta give the Helen Thomas obsession a rest.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
The judge cites the case of Clinton v. Jones (using Clinton's failed attempt to evade the Paula Jones lawsuit on the grounds he was too busy as President to bother with the case as an argument that the President must comply with all FISA rules even when inconvenient--ignoring the fact that that might mean the difference in catching the terrorists before they strike).

She cites cases having to do with freedom of speech and of the press, as if what Bush was trying to do was to restrain the terrorists from publicly expressing their views or from publishing newspapers or pamphlets advocating their point of view.

100 posted on 08/18/2006 7:09:35 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-108 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