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 wont 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 Taylors 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 Presidents 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 presidents 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.
HUH? So what, do it like the mess at the airport? We are suppose to have a quota system? Track a number of white males and grandmas and kids to be "Fair"? Simply unbelievable.
I think I remember him saying he lived in the mountains.
Never called while I was listening.
Hey Rush, page him on the show!!!
That's funny. :) That is all the Democrats have. They're not going to know how to run in 2008 when W is leaving office. I think many of them will STILL run against Bush even though he can't run again. :)
I expect both of President Bush's Supreme Court appointees to abstain if the NSA case gets that far. If this is the case, the USSC might not be a win for the administration.
Man I imagine I heard it back then, but I have SO slept since then. :) I don't even remember anything specific I DID in 1997/98, much less what I heard back then. :)
That's exactly what he means. Quotas on wiretaps. The new retarded. Just plain STUPID. Muslims are 100% of terrorists, Muslims should be 100% of wire taps. Just that simple.
There's NO reason for them to abstain. Roberts had to abstain in Hamdan v. Rumseld because he had WRITTEN the opinion on the circuit court, that's a clear conflict. Neither Alito or Roberts have ruled or taken part in the NSA deliberations and therefore do NOT have to recuse themselves.
Winston Churchill
John Kerry all ready holds that title
And says he is 40 so either he is lying about his age or his voting record. If he were forty he was 14 or 15 in 1980 and could not have voted for Reagan since he was not old enough.
While Wilson did express a religious interpretation, the philosophy behind the construction of the constitution married many different concepts of natural law, both secular and religious. These days people like to argue about intent rather than marvel over how wise and ambiguous the design was. Separation does not exist in the document, which leaves each citizen to address the topic of how much religion they do or don't accept in their own governance. Freedom for citizen's to decide for their self is the brilliance of it.
Nope only have to sit out cases they have all ready ruled on. This is a new case so they do NOT have to sit it out since the SC hearing would be the 1st they heard THIS case.
...Mussies, 90% of the wiretaps: The other 10% reserved for the RAT sympathizers.
I had a conversation with the young man for at least ten minutes. He really had no answer for my questions and commentary. It was frustrating but he really couldn't answer my questions with any clarity at all. Had no answers, just kept saying we should get permission from the FISA court first. I reminded him that the FISA court was established before 9/11 and that things had changed. That there were people in Paterson, NJ and Detroit, MI who would be dancing in the streets if we were attacked again. That I did not want to wait for that to happen and the democrat idea of going back to Square One......meant going back to before 9/11 and being vulnerable to an attack. Told him that the families of the dead would give anything for their loved ones to be alive and that the democrats were setting us up for more grieving families with their hatred of the President.
I think the same way you do. "Pro-Choice? Shame, your mother choose incorrectly"
Yeah no reason to think that Roberts or Alito will recuce themselves, they never had any part of any court case dealing with this. And they'll vote to overturn it, but I don't think it will get to them. I think the appeals court will oberturn it. Five other Judges in the U.S. have already said that the NSA plan is legal and Constitutional. That strong establishment of precedent will rule the day.
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.