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.
Hmmm, that is very interesting. I have been feeling rather shaky about Gonzales for a while now.
Same here.. Even though Washington did nothing about the borders....
Well, those branch DNC offices are expensive.
YEs the next caller was much better. The one after him worried me though when he started out with the dot.com'ers dropping like flies when Bush was President and 9-11 happening during Bush's administration, but then he clarified himself later. :) Those may have come to pass when Bush was President, but the seeds were ALL planted while Clinton was President. And you don't blame the chef when he was given bad ingredients.
I said the same thing about my union. They did little to nothing for me.
Yeah that Catherine Mayo broad is a radical anti-war activist liberal.
Oh, she's a journalist, well that fits too. The complete package.
I was talking to a recruiter, he was in computers during the dot.com bubble, and he saw that it was going to crash....
Yes. Fortunately, that world is shrinking.
Look at his record in court. GITMO, This...there were a couple more she rattled off I forget.
Well, me too. But they'd have to overrule 20 years of standings cases to get there. Breyer might under his "international law" construct, but I don't think Kennedy will go that far. Even if they got cert, and even if the five want to go with Ms. Diggs-Taylor, Kennedy will concur with a "standings" majority to reverse and remand. Gonzales is OK, but clearly an affirmative action hire. Starr would have been a LOT better, although I question whether he'd get through the Senate. The guy WAS a moonbat...although I've heard that phony "cyclical" or "pendulum" Presidency argument made by folks like David Gergle(sic)...
True...
She was upset about Joe LIEberman leaving the party.
Is he reading some of her writing? Wow!
That's some grade AAA moonbat lit right there!
Me three...I got laid off under Clintoon...
Boy is it ever. Good picture.
Hmmm, that is very interesting. I have been feeling rather shaky about Gonzales for a while now.
I've been hoping the new media would catch on to just how ineffective he is, but it's not to be.
She's also is a big fan of Howard Dean. Explains the mental illness.
You were under Clinton? Ewwww!
;-)
The union that I belonged to soured my taste about unions in general... Also, my dad use to own a building material company.. I guess he was good to the employees. One time he gave them Christmas bonuses not cheap for a small busisness. Few months later they threatend a strike.. After that he sold his share to his partner..
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.