That story deserves a DNC-media SEAL OF APPROVAL.
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.
These were the plaintiffs:
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION;
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION; AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION OF MICHIGAN;
COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC
RELATIONS; COUNCIL ON AMERICAN
ISLAMIC RELATIONS MICHIGAN;
GREENPEACE, INC.; NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE
LAWYERS; JAMES BAMFORD; LARRY
DIAMOND; CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS;
TARA MCKELVEY; and BARNETT R. RUBIN,
You're "a very naughty boy."
That story deserves a DNC-media SEAL OF APPROVAL.
Are there REALLY any fiscal and social liberals that AREN'T ideologues through and through? I mean, can a die hard lib really be reasoned with now a days? Seems like it's easier to get a 20 years crack addict clean than bring a liberal in the light. When were you a lib? I can't imagine you were as far left as the typical liberal now a days, and even if you were, you were obviously still rational and able to consider facts and evidence, even if they proved a reality opposite of what you previously held true. Most liberals aren't like that now a days. I think when you were a liberal you were the exception, not the rule. :) But it is nice to know that you came to the light side! :) Goodie. ;)
Seems to me that the dems were complaining about us not connecting the dots and now they are afraid we will connect the dots. People in MI and NJ and a few other places are definitely people we need to monitor.
Who's Behind the ACLU NSA Lawsuit . . . And Why Are They Lying?
Slip and fall lawyers filing suit. Jerks.
Christopher Hitchens???????????????? AAAARRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH
Same way they refer to this as ""wiretapping".
Boy is that ever the truth. You're right on.
Heard a woman (who fortunately doesn't vote) say that "we've gotta get rid of the Republicans or we won't have a country."
The news break on WCBM ditz still calling it "Warrantless Wire-tapping"....DUmb broad!
I'm sure she has no idea what she said?
Well, in my case you couldn't get much die-harder than me. But my prob was that I was getting all my info from the same few sources. If it hadn't been for the internet, my epiphany might have taken a lot longer. I know lots of folks whose views have changed with more information. If one has an open mind, then additional info can make a difference. And most of the Dems I know who still vote that way aren't ideologues, just information starved.
You have to wonder with how radical liberals are. We sure must not violate Muslims religious freedom by expecting them to not to murder Americans who aren't Muslims. The founders response to that would be simple. They wouldn't have allowed those Muslims in the country in the first place, and any who were here and demonstrated any sympathy for terrorists would be deported. Period. Liberals are so out of touch with what made this country possible. They don't even know how to defend themselves or this country anymore. When they try to, it just looks phony and uncomfortable for them.
The ruling reads like the contents of fricking reefer truck.
There are 16 references using the word chill, chilling, chills, or chilled.
As in "but that the TSP substantially chills and
impairs their constitutionally protected communications."
Having tble loading it, I'll get back to it later, Tnx.
I apologize for having to Christopher-up your Friday afternoon;)
Their pissed cause they can't leak.
I know, that's why we should be supporting Wal-Mart, not to mention I need the stuff anyway and why pay top dollar for lazy doofuses in the full price stores?
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.