Absolutely an absurd decision, as the courts are now ruling on moot, hypothetical cases to try and impose their will on elected officials with whom they disagree.
Total abuse of judicial power.
If the ACLU had an actual victim of wiretapping, a real life terrorist who suffered real damages by having their plans twarted by this program , the judge's decision would have still been wrong, but it wouldn't have been as tyrannical.
But here , there is no aggrieved party.
Its particularly ironic that the judge refers to the president in the ruling as a would be "king", when reality is that the judge is assuming that very rule.
The irony in that statement is so thick I would need a chainsaw to cut through it.
Prithee tell me, since when is a judicial ruling that the government cannot spy on its citizens without a warrant tyrannical?
There is no tyranny in liberty, my friend.