Judge Anne Diggs Taylor rules against FDR

Heheh! Bookmark.

Last thing GW should do, IMO

Of course you are correct. It would be simply another exercise at exposing dem hypocrisy. They put Jackson on a pedestal for being such a powerful president, yet would condemn Bush for it.

Examples of dem hypocrisy are far too common, so there no need to do it here. However, I disagree with the administration's approach. They should drop their Patriot Act argument and instead focus on established legal precedent (i.e. the Truong and Keith decisions). Keith was first argued in the same Circuit, so it should be quite easy to illustrate that Judge Taylor's decision overturns the legal precedent established by her very own Circuit Court of Appeals.

Last thing GW should do, IMO

Of course you are correct. It would be simply another exercise at exposing dem hypocrisy. They put Jackson on a pedestal for being such a powerful president, yet would condemn Bush for it.

Examples of dem hypocrisy are far too common, so there no need to do it here. However, I disagree with the administration's approach. They should drop their Patriot Act argument and instead focus on established legal precedent (i.e. the Truong and Keith decisions). Keith was first argued in the same Circuit, so it should be quite easy to illustrate that Judge Taylor's decision overturns the legal precedent established by her very own Circuit Court of Appeals.

Oops. That last one was from the Department of Redundancy Department.

Exactly correct. Beyond the fact tha thte Congress and President amended FISA in 2004 to make sure that the NSA wiretapping program was totally legal beyond a shadow of a doubt:

Lone wolf amendment

In 2004, FISA was amended to include a "lone wolf" provision. 50 U.S.C. §1801(b)(1)(C). A "lone wolf" is a non-US person who engages in or prepares for international terrorism. The provision amended the definition of "foreign power" to permit the FISA courts to issue surveillance and physical search orders without having to find a connection between the "lone wolf" and a foreign government or terrorist group.[15]

And beyond the fact that both Carter and Clinton used the old unamended version of FISA for this exact same kind of wire tapping, but in peace time and not against terrorists:

E.O. 12139 - Jimmy Carter's Executive order to provide as set forth in FISA for the authorization of electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes

E.O. 12949 - Bill Clinton's Executive order to provide for the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes

Beyond these important points, there is precedent set by FIVE other Judges in FIVE seperate court cases, in which ALL five of those Judges found the NSA wire tapping program was totally legal and constitution, and threw the cases out. That is QUITE compelling, and it's highly doubtful that the appeals court will uphold this pathetic partisan liberal agenda driven rulling by a sub-standard Judge who's sat on the same low court for 27 years. This ruling will only serve to anger many Americans like us and become a conservative talking point to drive more conservatives to the polls to stop these kinds of radical Judges from taking to ANY court, because with a GOP controlled Congress, NO liberal activist Judicial nominee will EVER get out of committee for a floor vote. And THAT is of critical importance, especially has unlikely as it is that Stevens or Ginsburg will make it to the end of Bush's term.

This is so important because the Judiciary effect ALL other major issues. The war (which liberal Judges have inserted themselves into the war), border control, immigration, gay marraige, Abortion, and states rights. All the major issues are effected by the courts and a GOP Congress is CRITICAL to stopping old liberal Judges from being replaced with new liberal Judges.

"All the major issues are effected by the courts and a GOP Congress is CRITICAL to stopping old liberal Judges from being replaced with new liberal Judges"

I know. Thats why we can only afford to vote out RINO's when we are assured it is safe to vote in a conservative in that seat.

We just did that in Michigan's 7th district, Schwartz is gone, but there is zero chance that Walberg could lose the seat.

You have seemed to embraced some dubious theories propogated by crackpot academics. FDR's trying to spend America out of the depression certainly did not prolong it. In fact, it was precisely the right thing to do. If anything, he didn't spend enough. It was only until 1942 that the US fully emerged from the depression. Why? Government spending in the form of military outlays acted as a huge prime pump for the economy. When a depression hits, the solution is to either boost government spending, cut taxes, or expand the money supply, or have both. (Reagan certainly did this in response to the grim recession of the early 1980s.) The Fed cut the money supply in 1929 and Hoover tried to balance the federal budget (the economic theory of the time told him it was the correct thing to do) and the combination of these two measures made the depression significantly worse. In the 1930s, we really didn't have a good handle on how the economy works; hence Roosevelt's experimentation and occasional blunder. It is not to far fetched to argue that Roosevelt essentially saved capitalism and the Constitution in this country.

There is no evidence that Roosevelt wanted Pearl Harbor to occur.