Thursday, August 17, 2006

Judge Taylor: Words to Live By

Here's a little excerpt from the ruling today that the NSA wiretapping is unconstitutional. First of all, it's so tragic that this even has to go to court. I mean talk about a no-brainer decision. But the real tragedy is the many Right Wing supporters of President Bush who rushed to condemn the ruling. They're so eager to surrender our pirvacy and rights. They're so trusting of the government to use the new power in only a good and wholesome way. It's so juvenile, really. President Bush reminds me of that spoiled reckless brat in high school and his supporters remind of a naive teenage girl who is weirdly attracted to him. Meanwhile everyone else sees right through him. Their support for President Bush has the sophistication of teenage puppy love. He's reckless and irresponsible and downright mean, and yet the little girl says, "Momma, but he's so cute and wonderful. He clears brush at his ranch!" This is cringe time, people. You're willingness to go along with this guy is way beyond pathetic. Meanwhile everyone else is just holding their breath, hoping you get it together before we lose what made America great. So why don't you stop doting on this mediocre loser long enough to read some words from the decision today. Unlike the immature babble this President churns out, at least this judge sounds like an adult. Here goes: "The Government appears to argue here that, pursuant to the penumbra of Constitutional language in Article II, and particularly because the President is designated Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, he has been granted the inherent power to violate not only the laws of the Congress but the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, itself.
We must first note that the Office of the Chief Executive has itself been created, with its powers, by the Constitution. There are no hereditary Kings in America and no power not created by the Constitution. So all "inherent power" must derive from that Constitution."

10 Comments:

At 12:00 AM, Anonymous butch said...

Hate to rain on the parade but this decision will be quickly and rightly overturned faster than you can say, "judge had head up her butt". Anyone familiar with legal writings can see right off the bat that it was a very poorly written opinion. It not only did not directly address legal precident, but avoided it altogether.

Judge Taylor all but avoids the SCOTUS' Keith decision and doesn't even bother to assess the FISA Appeals Court opinion in In the Sealed Case from 2002 where that panel of three federal judges specialized in this particular area of the law noted:

"It will be recalled that Keith carefully avoided the issue of a warrantless foreign intelligence search: “We have not addressed, and express no opinion as to, the issues which may be involved with respect to activities of foreign powers or their agents.” 407 U.S. at 321- 22.30 But in indicating that a somewhat more relaxed warrant could suffice in the domestic intelligence situation, the court drew a distinction between the crime involved in that case, which posed a threat to national security, and “ordinary crime.” Id. at 322. It pointed out that “the focus of domestic surveillance may be less precise than that directed against more conventional types of crimes.” Id.

The main purpose of ordinary criminal law is twofold: to punish the wrongdoer and to deter other persons in society from embarking on the same course. The government’s concern with respect to foreign intelligence crimes, on the other hand, is overwhelmingly to stop or frustrate the immediate criminal activity. As we discussed in the first section of this opinion, the criminal process is often used as part of an integrated effort to counter the malign efforts of a foreign power. Punishment of the terrorist or espionage agent is really a secondary objective;31 indeed, punishment of a terrorist is often a moot point."

Sorry for the wordy response. But anyone familiar with this case knows that the ACLU 'judge shopped' and settled on Judge Taylor - a radically left Carter appointee - because they knew the outcome was set in stone before the case was ever heard. It will be appealed to the 6th Circuit and immediately overturned because her ruling has no legal foundation whatsoever.

 
At 10:49 AM, Blogger Bill McDonald said...

I thought it addressed legal precendent: The Constitution.
I heard the President just now rushing to say how the recent London terrorist attack relied on this program. That's not true. Get a warrant. Butch, why do you trust this man so much? Would you extend the same powers to Hillary? Would you like Hillary reading your private emails without a warrant? Try to get past the cult of personality and rememeber your hero won't be in office forever.

 
At 5:56 PM, Blogger LaurelhurstDad said...

Bill, don't try to reason with the hard-core Cheney/Fox drones. They don't get it.

The president broke the law. No amount of rationalization can trump that simple fact.

Arguing that we are at war or Clinton did it or that it's Post 9/11 doesn't change the simple fact. Bush broke the law, and in ways that far outweigh getting some nookie on the side.

And reframing the issue, as Republicans are so good at these days, doesn't change the facts either. You can quote all kinds of opinions and orders, but the Constitution, until it's amended, stands above all. Nixon learned that, Reagan learned it. When will Butch learn it?

Cheney and the rest of his drones have to go.

 
At 6:36 PM, Blogger Rat said...

The anti-Bush crowd simply cannot see past their blinders. After having their nose rubbed in it time and time again, they have lost their collective minds. Have you read the opinion? Have you seen her fake eyebrows. Are you aware that she tried to fix an affirmative action case in the district court? Are you aware of how seriously ugly this woman (i use the term loosely) is? And the opinion is uglier than she is. It reads more like a broadside than a legal opinion. This is the same crowd who marveled at the genius of Mary James, the idiot measure 37 judge. I mean when you have to go to Detroit, the a$$hole of the midwest, to find a person whacko enough to be named Iran's "semi-human of the week", you must be getting desperate. I mean the Western District of Michigan ain't much. As Andrew Jackson said" the court has made their decision. Now let them try to enforce it". Anyone have any tar and feathers?

 
At 7:34 PM, Blogger LaurelhurstDad said...

I bow to rat's superior sarcasim. It never occured to me to associate her looks with her opinion.

Well done, Sir Rat.

 
At 10:45 PM, Blogger Rat said...

ugly is as ugly does.

 
At 8:13 AM, Anonymous butch said...

The law in Britain doesn't require a warrant for such surveillance. Of course, the law here doesn't either. Bill, if you had your way - which totally and completely disregards several legal cases in the past two decades that address this very issue on point and established the precedent that it is LEGAL and that no warrant is required - Aldrich Ames would be walking the streets out on a technicality right now. That is a fact.

 
At 9:41 PM, Blogger LaurelhurstDad said...

The Fox drones continue to bleat out their tired story. It is sad, and scary; so many people believe that it is somehow OK to break our laws if they think their cause is just.

These are the same people that still believe that Iraq was involved in 9/11 and that Iraq had WMD. They are so out of the loop that one would almost feel sorry for them. But we can’t feel sorry for them; we must educate them. The task for intelligent folk is to somehow show these sorry idiots the facts. Maybe then we can stop spending several billion dollars a week fighting a non-existent enemy in a country we don’t and cannot control. The enemy is our own naïve population that unfortunately is allowed to vote. Butch is a good example of such an idiot.

 
At 1:17 PM, Anonymous butch said...

LOL!! I'm not saying Iraq was involved in 9/11...but just an observation: Isn't it a bit odd that lefties are eager and willing to believe that our own government or Israel was involved in 9/11, but so unwilling to believe that Iraq was? Take from that what you will.....

 
At 10:56 PM, Blogger LaurelhurstDad said...

While I am not convinced that our government was involved in the attack, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence to support such a belief (like the disappearing airplanes). A lot more than there is for Iraq being involved.

Bush has consistently lied to us. Why do you trust him so much?

Oh wait, I forgot -- you watch Fox!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home