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.
I thought that crook was her ex-hubby?
Reminder
After this thread concludes, politically insensitive Mr. Brightside invites you over for abusive comments:
Photos: Monkey Throws Out First Pitch at Red Sox Game (Better Than John Kerry)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1685964/posts?page=1
I remember as teen, one time skeet shooting with my brother, Dan, we used clay pigeons as bowls for our salads because we(he) forgot to bring the real bowls.
How did this idiot get elected. You are a US Senator and you are SO stupid that you do NOT even know it has NOTHING to do with "Wiretapping"?
I've gotten so cynical about that issue, that I won't be surprised if at some point a judge rules that stopping Muslim terrorist from killing unbelievers is a violation of their religious freedom.
Where there's life, there's hope :)
In case you didn't see this:
Connect the Dots?
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004297.htm
Note from MI yesterday:
Amazing that the left had no issues with Clinton's very broad-spectrum, fuzzy focused, "echelon" program that would intercept millions of emails and phone calls from everyone as it looked for "key words".
President Bush's program is limited to known IP addresses and cell numbers taken from the terrorists.
All Clinton had to do was change key words from "bomb" and "osama" to "republican" and "conservative" and he would track political opponents (Filegate anyone?). Bush's program only goes after IP addresses found on computers taken from the terrorists. If a terrorists visits websites from his "safe house" in Iraq, I think we should know what he was doing. We use the exact same procedures for fighting drug lords and pedophile rings. Yet somehow what Bush is doing is wrong, but what Clinton did is ok?
The idiocy of the left never ceases to amaze me.
36 posted on 08/17/2006 1:04:25 PM EDT by M1Tanker (Proven Daily: Modern "progressive" liberalism is just National Socialism without the "twisted cross")
#153....luv ya buddy!
Good afternoon, Johnnie, late but accounted for from a trip to the doctor. Here in work, n'lurk mode (having finished lunch...)...I heard Rush in the van and he's on fire again...!
Haven't heard anything on her father yet....what do you know?
Have I told you recently that you are wonderful?
That's good to know. Precedent is already set in several lower courts, that it's legal and not unconstitutional. Good. This smells of the ACLU shopping for liberal judges that will rule it unconstiutional and they finally found this broad, and she bit. That's what this smells like to me.
There you go again Ali, clouding the issue with common sense and facts!
This Terrorist Sympathizer Wears a Black Robe and is Female!
http://americandaily.com/article/15144
In a shocking reminder of why Democrats should never be entrusted with power at any level, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit ruled that a surveillance program utilized by the Bush Administration in the war on terror is unconstitutional.
Who in the hell is Anna Diggs Taylor? And how in the name of all that is decent and righteous can an obscure federal judge unilaterally shut down a vital intelligence tool used by the U.S. Commander-in-Chief while the nation is at war?
As it turns out, Judge Taylor worked on Jimmy Carter’s presidential campaign in 1976 and was sworn in as a federal judge to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in 1979.
So, Anna Diggs Taylor was elevated beyond her capabilities during the administration of one of the worse presidents in U.S. history. Why does that fact not come as a great surprise?
Twenty six years after We the People booted the bumbling Jimmy Carter out of the Oval Office, his legacy of incompetence comes back to haunt America and all of the civilized world. Like a very bad penny, Jimmy Carter keeps coming back.
Despite her mind-numbing liberalism, surely Judge Taylor reads newspapers, watches television, browses the Internet or listens to the radio. Right?
Does September 09, 2001 ring a bill, Judge? What about the plot uncovered in the United Kingdom last week in which terrorists were in the final stages of “unimaginable mass murder?” A plot, by the way, which was discovered and dismantled in cooperation with U.S. intelligence authorities?
If Judge Taylor’s ruling ultimately stands, then it is point, match and championship for the terrorists. Osama bin Laden, with an assist from the Lady in Black from Detroit, will have trumped G.W. Bush, the American people and the cherished principles upon which this great nation was founded 230 years ago.
And history will note, probably in Arabic, that Islamic fascism prevailed in the war on terror because of an abuse of judicial power by a female terrorist sympathizer in a black robe, sans only the burka.
From Irish Mike
Sooooo accurate. Sadly so.
Rushbo:
On article
"married women with children are taking flight from Repubs appearing likely to provide major boost to Dems"
....
it appears gloom and doom but at end...
"married mothers in Clintonville, OH, that the remain concerned about nat security and ability of Dems to protect them from terrorist strikes"
"Do YOU understand what just happened in this story, it is 180 degrees out of phase with headline.
I thought there where law against Judge shopping.
Hi Good to see you. You picked a good week to come back. Rush has been on fire.
Hello. :) Like your tagline.
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.