You knocked that out of the park! Think you sent that one into ORBIT!
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.
He said he was 45.
If he voted for Reagan, then I voted for John Kerry this past election....
If he is 41 then that would mean he voted for Reagan when he was 15.
I thought he said he was 46...but he's FOS anyway.
It's stupid people like this guy that ALMOST make me rethink my stand on abortion. If stupid liberals are bound and determined to kill their own kids, maybe RvW should be left alone. It spares the rest of the country from having to deal with their kids in 18 years after being messed up and turned into liberals like their screwed up parents. I don't know. I have that thought some time. I hate abortion, but when I hear stupid people like this that pass on their ignorance and stupidity on a generational level, it really makes me wonder.
Why did Rush spend 10+ minutes on this guy? Sometimes, he gets into this teaching mode and I mean that as a complement, but it is like he lost steam with this dip ship.
You knocked that out of the park! Think you sent that one into ORBIT!
Oh, I missed that...I'm just going by what is posted here...I saw a lot of "41"s
Okay, he's old enough.
Still a Liar
I should say, make me rethink my stand of not allowing it. I'll always oppose it strongly, but stupid people like that caller make me wonder if it should be allowed for people that want it, to spare the political gene pool, even though I oppose it strongly.
I think this is a fake call - he is not what he says he is. started out really dumb and needed education and ended up being really dumb and would not recognize wise words if they hit him in the face.
Another thing -- the 'born agains' I know are strong Republicans and do not talk like this 42 yr old guy from Aspin. He is, what are they called, ceral callers!
I'm shocked the caller did not say, he voted for Reagan twice, and GWB twice.
Who are the Muslim lawyers involved in this? Do these lawyers work for the ACLU?
"Lucky sperm club." LOL!
"Remember that one Rush show years ago when a call like this was pretty early, "
Anybody remember James from Dakota (forgot north or south). Back in 97 or 98. That guy had a rant that could not be stopped. He was great.
"Lucky Sperm Club"...ROFL!
John Kerry is a Winthrop -- part of the Mayflower club
Not on this case, IMHO. First, the Standing precedents are going to be HARD to overcome. If Rehnquist did anything right, there is a huge corpus of law requiring absolute and not speculative harm (which this clearly is) before you even get to make your case. Kennedy and even Breyer signed onto most of those. Secondly, you never get to the Constitutional precedents when you can decide on Statutory elements. Diggs-Taylor totally dismissed the Authorizaion of Force arguments which in many other cases has been held to pretty much approve Executive power. So I don't think they get past the Court of Appeals.
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.