RUSH LIMBAUGH LIVE THREAD FRIDAY AUGUST 18, 2006

Rush Limbaugh.com ^

[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.

[stacytec]

"Except of course your interpretation ignores encompasses the context of the Founders time."

There, fixed it for you. These issues were discussed by Hume, Paine and Locke and echoed in the Federalist Papers. The constitution is a construct of utilitarian and philosophical ideas.

[NorthWoody]

I'm no expert by any means, I've just tried several different brands of the real stuff over the years and I've found that the Roddenberry's is better that's all.

Syrup is pretty good no matter what, really, and I like waffles too. I have homemade Belgians every Saturday and Sunday morning.

[MNJohnnie]

The FISA court has all ready ruled on this and found the President's program completely with in the Law. It is another example of the utter failure of our Junk Media to do it's duty and actually REPORT the facts. This child clearly is merely mindlessly resurrecting all the lies fed him by the Leftist Education Establishment. The use of such out right lies as "Warranty Wiretapping" "Congressional Over-site" etc prove the Junk Media is merely reprinting the Moveon.org or DNC Talking Points emailed them. Simple answer. The President's Commander in Chief powers are inherent to his office and are not in any way subject to Congressional Oversight. There is a Power grab here. Congress is trying to claim for itself power to ignore the US Constitution and the Executives Inherent powers at it's whimsy.

[MNJohnnie]

You lose.

"Except of course your interpretation "encompasses the context of the Founders time"." The above claim is directly contradicted by THIS statement.

These issues were discussed by Hume, Paine and Locke and "echoed in the Federalist Papers">

Very 1st item in the Bill of Rights.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The current attempt to impose the modern doctrine of human secularism (meely a different form of religious belif) on the majority by the minority of secularists IS both "an establishment of religion and a prohibiting the free exercise of" other religions. Clearly the valued religion so highly they made it the VERY 1st Right specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights. The argument that they were agnostic, or secularist or anti religious is utterly without any factual merit based both in their personal, and their public, statements.

[UB355]

mark

[Ingtar]

Happy to hear that. I was concerned for how the vote would go in that case.

[fight_truth_decay]

angcat..wise computer..it is scary

[angcat]

I just viewed it on my home computer. A nice Daisy Cutter would have been good for the last segment.