Posted on 08/18/2006 8:47:18 AM PDT by MNJohnnie
A couple of articles why the NSA ruling by the Carter Appointee is so much garbage.
http://levin.nationalreview.com/
By Mark Levin
Judge Not
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.
My dull headache is returning... ;)
Did Rush cover Anna Diggs Taylor's infamous father Charles yet?
And to say thank you...
For anyone who needs a kitten break (^..^)/
What about him? Link?
The men of our church are getting together next week to go skeet shooting. At our church, it isn't a good men's outing if you don't come back smelling like fish or gunpowder.
By the way, what's the best way to cook skeet?
Turley should work on his enunciation ("aministration", "constution", etc.).
Oh good grief, "torture". It's a mental illness that liberals would rather have terrorist acts carried out, killing THOUSANDS, including women and children and babies, rather than smack around some sub-human low life cock roach terrorist. There is a disconnect in reality when someone is THAT against means if intimidation and mild "torture" to save thousands of lives. I'd do it in a heart beat if it would get information to save lives, and I have zero problem with that. If people don't want to be beaten on, they shouldn't be trying to murder civilians. It's that simple.
Now, don't say that. It depends on the Dem. I used to be a flaming lib. If the lib in question is merely ignorant, instead of an ideologue, then there's still hope :)
This ruling sure doesn't make me feel safer. I'd be nervous flying until it's back on line and working.
This slime bag habit of rushing to the cameras and screaming hysteric lie after lie makes ALL the current Democrats completely UNFIT for any measure of ANY political Power at ANY level. They simply cannot be trusted with power. Their out of control lust for power shows their fundamental unfitness to hold it.
"Did Rush cover Anna Diggs Taylor's infamous father Charles yet?"
Not (yet)
Marinate them in melted butter, lemon, balsmic vinegar and chopped chives for 24 hrs at room temp. Then throw out the skeet and pour the rest over the Walleye fillets you're grilling on the BBQ.
Great rant, great point.
As long as the Dems stay glued to their cut and run, b*tch and whine positions, there may be some hope.
In case you didn't see this:
Connect the Dots?
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004297.htm
IB4P?
Oh, so you're of the 'hope springs eternal' school, eh?
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.