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.
Maybe this will be a wakeup call for our AG to prosecute the leakers, naaaaah, ain't gonna happen.
Lets see, the new madia, right or wrong, stopped Miers and Dubai but is silent on the leakers. I just don't get it.
I must have been asleep that week. Completely missed that story.
my cousin is the same. She said -- I never vote -- I said "thank you"
So they get the talking point for a year, great.
Which illustrates a point that probably worries us all: Does America have what it takes to win against this cunning enemy. (I'm speaking of al-Qaeda - not the judiciary)
The wheels of justice grind just slow enough for the election. HOPEFULLY, another of these cases will be decided the other way (I believe there are other similar cases in other Circuits), and it will come up as a conflict of Circuits, which would be an easier PR legal situation.
I think we got tired of beating our heads against the wall. THe Executive branch has shown they will not go after the legislative branch for anything...including hiding money in the freezer.
I only examine the content....
/yeah sure
The ruling is bad, stands opposed by precedent, five previous cases in fact, and it just gives more ammunition to the conservatives like us that always say that liberal activist Judges have to be replaced and that liberals do not protect us from terrorism and are more pre-occupied with incorrectly perceived violations of ficticious civil rights, than protecting the counry. This willbe a bad backlash for the liberals in the end, and it will all happen before the election.
Terrorists in suits. That's all lawyers like him are.
In 00, my idiot niece (that's how I always differentiate her from her two sisters) said she was going to vote fo Clinton. "Why?" I asked her. "I don't know, I just like her." (said in a valley-girl voice) I wanted to stick screwdrivers in my ears till they met.
She forgot to vote on election day!
A bigoted comment from a Democrat...I'm so surprised...
Next time tell her the Democrats vote on Wednesday.
Afternoon hattend.
I've long perceived that the cause-and-effect gene is missing from liberals. They believe they're exempt from the results of their words and deeds.
After yesterday, I'm pretty sure it's already conflicted. At least that's what they were saying on Brit's roundtable last night.
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.