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.
Oh she does. Die-hard West by God Virginia Dem. Ma Maw was a Dem. Ma was a Dem. I'm a Dem.
I sorry a Clinton Judgesruled that saying was an infringement on the Whine All the Time Choir's 1st Amendment to pout non stop. That has been changed to "Where there is life, there is mope."
"The Plaintiffs in this case are not claiming simply that the Defendants' surveillance has "chilled" them from making international calls to sources and clients. Rather, they claim that Defendants' surveillance has chilled their sources, clients, and potential witnesses from communicating with them. The alleged effect on Plaintiffs is a concrete, actual inability to communicate with witnesses, sources, clients and others without great expense which has significantly crippled Plaintiffs, at a minimum, in their ability to report the news and competently and effectively represent their clients."
They are MUSLIM.....they won their lawsuit against NSA wiretapping....HOLY SH*T! We are cutting our own throats!!!!!!!!!!
Dems are just showing the socialists they are, going after Wal Mart.
bttt
Boy is that ever accurate. Great commentary. That says it all. Though at this point, I think Jimmah Cateh is more like a bad V.D.. He may go dormant for a while, but every so often he will crop up again, causing itching, redness, and swealling, and there is no cure, he's always there, waiting to cause irritation in the future.
You bet; I don't like Costco because you have to buy things in such bulk that things go bad or you don't use them ... Walmart is perfect for two people's needs and a Superstore gets you fresh lobster when you want them! Oh, that's right, cooking lobster is a PETA violation...TOUGH!!
From ruling:
"... 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.14"
Well, like with all other things, the law doesn't apply to liberals, or Muslims. The irony is, the liberals are the ones in America that the Muslims most hate, because the liberals are so immoral and without ethical base. But the Muslims know that the conservatives wouldn't tolerate their radicalism, so they use the liberals to try and reach their goals, which would in the process, destroy liberalism. So ironic.
Is "Forum Shopping" worse than "Doctor Shopping"?
***Haven't heard anything on her father yet....what do you know?***
See the link in my reply #221
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1685937/posts?page=221#221
Carter is a whole lot more like hemorrrhoids than any VD I've heard of..........
Vice Chair: Mohammed Abdrabboh, J.D., Dearborn - Appointed May 2003
It's not been outlawed.
Like Rush said, it's formally called "Forum shopping", and it's just like you said. The ACLU and the Muslims are on the WRONG side of actual law, so they have to look for a stacked deck to get a ruling in their favor, they have to know that the higher courts can't be picked and chozen like that. And precedent has already been set and that will doom this pathetic ruling to being reversed thankfully.
Yes, but liberals do it ALL the time..It's technically not legal, but there is nothing in the rules that really stop it. You can file in any Court which has jurisdiction and where the venue requirements are right.
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.