Posted on 08/18/2006 6:53:43 AM PDT by yoe
Anyone who knows what legal analysis and argument looks like -- anyone who knows the requisites of legal reasoning -- must look at the ( handiwork) of Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in the NSA case in amazement. It is a pathetic piece of work. If it had been submitted by a student in my second year legal writing class at the University of St. Thomas Law School, it would have earned a failing grade.
On the issue of the legality of warrantless interception of enemy communication, for example, it is entirely conclusory. It does not address precedent. It assumes its conclusion, framing the issue as whether the president can break the law. It simply asserts that the NSA eavesdropping program is "obviously in violation of the Fourth Amendment" -- apparently because it is warrantless. (Wrong.) She sagely observes that the "President of the United States is himself created by that same Constitution" -- you know, the one with the Fourth Amendment that she apparently thinks requires warrants in all cases.
Judge Taylor is like the big bad wolf in the fairly tale. She huffs and she puffs. I think she's facing the brick house that can't be blown down -- she at least can't blow it down -- but the end of this unedifying fairy tale has yet to be written by a higher and presumably more competent authority.
....Is this a reference to Ahmed Shah Massoud's death in Afghanistan? Or did the article mean two days later?
.
.
.
.
The exploding camera.
This Ann Diigs Taylor judge is a senile moron who is so stupid she even won't hire smart law clerks to write a more intelligent opinion. This one was obviously penned by this idiot wind judge
I'm just asking is all. If the NSA wanted to confiscate the firearms of anybody they wanted to using the same sort of process, there'd be any number of Freepers claiming the Second Amendment as an absolute right, and its abridgement prima facie tyranny.
The thing to remember is this: If they can do it to anyone, they can do it to you.
Now, fellas, proceed to shoot that argument down without calling me names. I posted it specifically for you to refute.
You are correct. WP pretty much kicked her to the curb.
Just another step in the dims grand scheme to set Dubya up for charges of impeachment, if they take control of Congress.
Privacy is a false argument and has been for some time. Your insurance company and the credit bureaus have more on you than the feds do and you can do nothing about it. I would rather be secure knowing that the feds were looking over my shoulder and keeping me safe. I have nothing to hide, and in times of war, these steps are necessary.
It doesn't matter if it gets overturned , it gives a-holes like Pelosi and Kennedy a chance to get up and say the President violated the Constitution. We all know that this idiot Carter appointee will be overturned, but the Libs get to kick the President until it is. When it is overturned it will probably be posted in the want ads of all the MSM press.
"Taylor isn't just judicially incompetent, she's a village idiot."
No, she is political. This is not her first attempt to write law from the bench. Here is what I wrote for another local forum:
"I’ll begin with a brief bit on why this doesn’t matter. District Courts in 5 of the 11 districts had previously ruled that programs similar to the NSA terror listening program were legal. As late as last week in US v Rosen a federal District court ruled such program legal based on precedence. In addition 4 appeals court decisions and 1 Supreme Court opinion all supported the President. The body of case law was clear and definitive.
So, what do we have? We have the ACLU judge shopping for a political judge to make a ruling based on personal opinion and ideology and not the law. As desired the judge did exactly that. Fortunately, the 6th has a reputation for generally following the law and Constitution so I expect this to be killed on appeal pretty fast.
With that said, the question becomes ‘why’, as in why rule in a manner sure to be overturned? The answer is simple….nothing is sure in the Courts. Perhaps the Appeals Court will have a bad day or some member will be absent or ill and the court rules to uphold the decision. If so it Goes to the Supremes and they are infamous for making it up. The 20% chance the appeals process will uphold is therefore, worth the effort. Besides, the Judge gets her name in lights and the old media makes hay for a few days.
What was wrong with the decision…lots apparently. The best spin I read on it today was that the opinion was legally ‘thin’, meaning based on little. The bits about the 4th seem to ignore all previous case law and the most reversible bit is the issue of standing. Judge Taylor simply dismissed the issue as having little merit. That will be the reason for reversal if the appeals court does not want to make waves.
Now the question should be..’why do I say the ACLU Judge shopped and why is Judge Taylor considered a political judge?’
That is easy, it was widely reported the ACLU spent a good bit of time finding a case in just the right location before just the right sympathetic Judge. The Judge was considered sympathetic (partisan) because she has a track record. She previously cook the books to rig a Civil Rights case having to do with affirmative action. She was caught out and received a good bit of publicity and a chastising by the 6th Circuit.
This applies:
http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/boggs.html
So, what do we have when all is said and done, a decision by a partisan judge that will almost certainly be overturned and that is one decision out of about a dozen at the federal level on the issue. It keeps the anti-American left with an argument (until reversed) and the old media with water to carry in the real war, the war against Bush."
'going to get a lot of innocent Americans killed through their "no clue" rulings'...
I feel the same......this "judge" is placing me, my family and millions of other Americans in danger.
I pray some activist organization begin a movement against her.....hopefully, either get her off the bench or force our "esteemed" legislators to use the authority they have to stop and reverse the dangerous judicial rulings that can harm the U.S. and her citizens.
I know she's political because even the press admits she's a Democrat.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1685866/posts
"If you have done nothing wrong, comrade, you have nothing to fear." - Lavrenti Pavlovich Beria, 1899 - 1953
I grow concerned when our political principles make us sound like such a one as Beria.
She's not that powerful. This ruling will have as much effect on the WOT as what I eat for lunch today. Her amateurish opinion has opened her up to ridicule -- and not just from the political Right.
why, he would rule the same way
When the Washington Post editorializes that a Leftist, Activist judicial opinion is worthless, that says everything about just how far off base this was.
Has one Senator made a statement yet supporting the opinion?
If your aunt had balls , she'd be your uncle. Why argue the if's when life and death are at stake. I don't think the government has the time to waste on everyday conversations of law abiding citizens. What a boring job.
What price is too high under such circumstances?
Uh, well no kidding. Anna Diggs Taylor is a poster child for the Democrat version of affirmative action.
Lower the standards far enough and Anna Diggs Taylor is what you get.
The key is that if there were a Democrat in the White House, doing the very same thing, this woman would have ruled exactly opposite. I'd bet serious money on that.
Wel, until she is overturned, the Left media and the Dems will crow and lie and Bush and the GOP will suffer in Nov. That is simply the truth because people take in lies first and then with few dissents from the Admin. and what is the Conserv media, the wussy public just believes that Bush and the war on terror is , well, you know, made up!!!
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.