Posted on 07/03/2008 10:28:19 AM PDT by steve-b
A federal judge in California said Wednesday that the wiretapping law established by Congress was the "exclusive" means for the president to eavesdrop on Americans, and he rejected the government’s claim that the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief trumped that law....
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Can someone tell me why California judges get to decide so much for the nation? Or am I understanding this wrong?
If it is "Bush's view" why does Congress get a pass for approving it?
Oh, read the rest, 2 competing laws. The excerpt is pretty brief. If NYet Times doesn’t want me to skim their whole article, such posts will be made.
Who needs to give them the hits?
Judge shopping
The Justice Dept. was wrong in this case. The president’s power has limits and claiming the right to wiretap without warrant because he’s commander in chief is a farce.
How many “conservatives” would be supporting this if it had been proposed by Bill Clinton and how many want to give that power to Obama?
The Judge didn't completely knock Al-Haramain out of Court, yet, but they have very little chance of producing evidence that will hold up in court; the next step will be a complete dismissal of their lawsuit.
I make it +1
They judiciary can decide whatever they want. But so can anybody. The question is whether or not the executive or legislative branches of government will have the moral courage to ignore them when they are clearly wrong.
We are long over due for a show down.
I can’t wait to give limitless executive authority to President Obama.
Bill Clinton did do it and it was for economic espionage and had nothing to do with our national security. There was no media knashing of teeth about that. I suspect that if Obama became President, he would do the same thing and more without notice.
Which is entirely why there’s supposed to be a check and balance system. I don’t care whether the occupant of the WH has a (D) or (R) after their name. As for national security, they’ll be using that as justification for new powers to combat “global warming”.
The Founders never intended an imperial presidency for good reason.
I hate it when judges get to make decisions.
Then don't wait, and try to prevent it in the meantime.
Exactly right.
Judicial tyranny.
Think it is bad now, wait and see what’ll happen if Hussein occupies the Oval Office.
Suit accusing Bush of acting illegally tossed
07-02) 18:56 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge in San Francisco dismissed a lawsuit Wednesday that sought to prove President Bush acted illegally in 2001 when he ordered the wiretapping of phone calls between Americans and suspected foreign terrorists without court approval.
"Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker said an Islamic charity on the government's terrorist list could not use a crucial classified document - an accidentally released memo indicating the charity and its lawyers had been wiretapped - to show that it had been harmed by the surveillance program and thus had the right to challenge it in court. But the organization's lawyer said he wasn't giving up."
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/07/03/judge-throws-out-wiretap-suit-from-suspected-al-qaeda-charity/
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.