Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court: Wiretap program is illegal (Idiot Judge is a Democrat Alert)
dallas morning news/McClatchy ^ | 8/18/2006 | Ron Hutcheson, Margaret Taley

Posted on 08/18/2006 6:47:59 AM PDT by tobyhill

WASHINGTON – In a scathing rebuke, a federal judge ruled Thursday that the Bush administration's warrantless eavesdropping program is unconstitutional and should be shut down, but legal scholars said federal authorities have a good chance of reversing the decision on appeal.

"There are no hereditary kings in America and no power not created by the Constitution," U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of Detroit said in a 43-page opinion blasting the program.

Judge Taylor said the program, which President Bush secretly approved after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, violated the rights of free speech and privacy and went far beyond the president's authority. Administration officials say the surveillance program targets telephone calls and e-mails between the United States and terror suspects overseas.

While the ruling was a clear victory for Mr. Bush's critics, it didn't end the legal battle over the secret eavesdropping. Legal scholars said the administration had a good chance of winning its appeal to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, which handles cases from Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee.

"This isn't the definitive word," said Bruce Fein, a Washington lawyer who agreed with Judge Taylor's conclusions. "This is going to the 6th Circuit. If the 6th Circuit goes against the government, it's going to the Supreme Court."

Carl Tobias, a constitutional scholar at the University of Richmond's law school, said the 6th Circuit tended to be sympathetic to the government's national-security concerns.

"There are more judges on that court who come down on the national security end of the spectrum than the civil liberties end," he said. "The majority probably would reverse this decision."

Judge Taylor, a Democrat whom President Jimmy Carter appointed to the court,

(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bdr; bushhaters; democrat; idiot; judge; judiciary; nsa; rat; taylor
This paper has now admitted that Taylor is a political operative.
1 posted on 08/18/2006 6:48:01 AM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
Yet this analysis shows that the Judge's rant is anything but a "clear victory:" Amateur Hour? A judge’s first-year failing-grade opinion
2 posted on 08/18/2006 6:50:17 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (Tom Gallagher - the anti-Crist [FL Governor, 2006 primary])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Let's hope that this "judge" gets a scathing rebuke from a higher court.

She should be impeached by Congress, but they don't have the spine for anything remotely like wresting the reins of government from the judicial oligarchy.

.


3 posted on 08/18/2006 6:52:16 AM PDT by Westbrook (Having more children does not divide your love, it multiplies it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
Biography: An attorney and judge, Anna Diggs Taylor was the first African-American woman appointed to a federal judgeship in Michigan and later became the first African-American woman to be named chief federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan. Taylor has used her positions to advance civil rights throughout the United States. Born Anna Katherine Johnston in 1932 in Washington, D.C., Taylor grew up in a household in which politics and civil rights were highly valued. Her parents sent her to private school in Massachusetts because they felt she needed a greater challenge than the local schools provided. She graduated in 1950 from Northfield School for Girls in Massachusetts and then enrolled at Barnard College where she earned a B.A. in Economics. She entered Yale University Law School and earned her law degree in 1957. After graduation she could not find a job in a private law firm due to the prejudices against African Americans and women. She found work as a solicitor for the Department of Labor, working under J. Ernest Wilkins, the first African American to hold a sub-cabinet post in the United States government. In 1960 Taylor married United States Representative Charles Diggs, Jr., and she moved to Detroit. After moving to Detroit, Taylor worked for a year as an assistant county prosecutor in Wayne County. In 1964 she spent the summer in Mississippi as part of the National Lawyers Guild civil rights program to provide legal services for civil rights activists, arriving on the day that three civil rights workers disappeared in Philadelphia, Mississippi. When Taylor and other attorneys went to the sheriff's office to ask about the disappearance they were surrounded by a crowd of angry whites, who hurled racial epithets at Taylor and her companions. In 1966 Taylor became assistant United States attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan. After the birth of her daughter, she worked managing her husband's Detroit office until their divorce in 1971. From 1970 to 1975 she was a partner in the law firm Zwerdling, Mauer, Diggs, and Papp. In 1976 she married S. Martin Taylor. Taylor became active in politics, helping Coleman Young in his 1973 campaign and Jimmy Carter in his 1976 victory. After Young's election, Taylor was named special counsel to the City of Detroit and then in 1975 accepted the full time position as assistant corporation counsel for the city. She successfully defended new city policies that established affirmative action hiring practices and outlawed discrimination in two private yacht clubs located on city-owned Belle Isle. Taylor became the first African-American women named to a Michigan federal court on November 15, 1979, when she was sworn in as a federal judge to the U.S. District Court for the Eastren (sic) District of Michigan. In 1997 she became the first African-American woman to be named chief judge of Eastern District of the United States District Court. In 1998 Taylor stepped down as chief judge in order to reduce her workload. She continued to serve as a senior federal judge ........................................................ http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7494 ........................................................ NLG: The Legal Fifth Column By Jesse Rigsby....................................... FrontPageMagazine.com | April 25, 2003 ...................... The National Lawyers Guild (NLG, also "the Guild") embraces every anti-America, anti-capitalist, anti-war, anti-Israel, and "anti-imperialist" cause in vogue among the far left and declares itself "dedicated to the need for basic change in the structure of our political and economic system." If this strikes the reader as a slight hint that the Guild’s underlying ideology is not exactly laissez-faire capitalism, that is because it is not. While the Guild is not officially communist or Marxist, its membership, leadership, past internal struggles, and adopted stances consistently point to an organization whose underlying convictions could best be described as such.
4 posted on 08/18/2006 6:52:26 AM PDT by radar101 (The two hallmarks of Liberals: Fantasy and Hypocrisy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
The ACLU sued on behalf of a group of journalists, lawyers and researchers who suspected that government eavesdroppers had targeted their international calls.

Now that's a good reason to sue the federal government.

I suspect the ACLU are a$$holes. Can I sue them? Scratch that. I know they are.

5 posted on 08/18/2006 6:53:43 AM PDT by Bigoleelephant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

Excellent read. I will finish it a bit later but from what I did read it makes me wonder how did she get past the congress?


6 posted on 08/18/2006 6:54:49 AM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook

If the Rats think that she will help their cause and want to put "Democrat" by her name it's their loss. I hope they embrace her with open arms and stick by her.


7 posted on 08/18/2006 6:57:32 AM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

An activist judge, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, appointed by the worst president in American history, Jimmy Carter. That should say it all about this lunatic in a black robe. This ACLU loyalist judge has in fact given constitutional rights to the very same people that want to kill her. One week removed from England stopping a massive terrorist attack, using similar tactics and this judge says we cant do so. You libs cry that we arent any safer than we were on 9-11-01, yet you take away the very tools that are protecting us. Your elected leaders cheer, "We killed the Patriot Act" and then say we arent safe. The American Criminal Liberty Union (ACLU) and ANSWER hate my country and you libs follow in their lead. You all are a pathetic bunch and it will be your doing and thinking that is going to get us killed.


8 posted on 08/18/2006 6:57:50 AM PDT by Long Island Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

This is more of the RAT game of undermining our system of justice. Like I needed someone to tell me this whacko is a dem operative. How do these slimes get to be judges?


9 posted on 08/18/2006 6:58:48 AM PDT by Neoliberalnot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
Klinton started the spying on innocent Americans so he should be the one going to jail.
10 posted on 08/18/2006 7:00:43 AM PDT by mountainlyons (Hard core conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
There are no hereditary kings in America and no power not created by the Constitution.

This comment by the "judge" is nothing more than a bumper sticker slogan from the back of a Subaru in Berkley. Obviously the reference to no hereditary kings is a swipe at Bush by the smug leftist.

This is a classic example of a liberal, appointed to the bench by a Democrat, acting out their personal opinions rather than applying case law.

And the scenario is well established:

1) A high profile case given to a liberal judge.
2) Activist liberal judge rules against conservative case (surprise, surprise).
3) All the MSM scream headlines the next day how Bush/Republicans/conservative case was "RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY COURT".
4) The case eventually goes to the Supreme Court who then knock the stuffings out of the lower courts decision.
5) Media reports Supreme Courts ruling on page A16 with one paragraph.

11 posted on 08/18/2006 7:01:25 AM PDT by Obadiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Neoliberalnot
This judge needed to be booted from the case from the start for prejudicial bias. I would like to know if her or any close associates of hers have been putting money in the Rat's pockets or vice-versa?
12 posted on 08/18/2006 7:02:12 AM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Obadiah

The Liberal Rats played a good game of judge shopping. They filed hundreds of Federal District Lawsuits but kept the ones where they got liberal Democrat operative Judges and then just dropped the rest. This Judge shopping has to end but our congress Republican and Democrat doesn't seem to want to address it.


13 posted on 08/18/2006 7:05:47 AM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
"There are no hereditary kings in America and no power not created by the Constitution," U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of Detroit...

Ha! that's laughable. I bet if someone did a search of her decisions there would be plenty of instances where she found emanations and prenumbras...

14 posted on 08/18/2006 7:05:55 AM PDT by Ranxerox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

what does the US Supreme Court do for a living?

ummmm, do something?


15 posted on 08/18/2006 7:05:59 AM PDT by greasepaint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

The analysis I have read about this "ruling" indicate that it is an embarassment. Appointed in 78 by Carter, in the height of the affirmative action era, one wonders about competence here, not just partisanship. Legal scholars, even those of the left, refrain from phrases like "King George" (not widely reported in the press) in legal documents. Quite shameful.


16 posted on 08/18/2006 7:10:06 AM PDT by fschmieg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

She, like the leakers and the NYT et al., is no less than a traitor to this country.


17 posted on 08/18/2006 7:13:14 AM PDT by manic4organic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greasepaint
The USSC has to be the final arbiter of unresolved disputes but the lower court decisions still have to be done without consideration of party ideology and if done this would alleviate much of the contradictions in law.
18 posted on 08/18/2006 7:13:22 AM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
"There are no hereditary kings in America"

What the hell does this statement mean? Where in the argument does a king come into play. Who in America doesn't realize we have no kings. This judge apparently hangs out and posts in liberal blogs in her spare time. Spare time that I personally hope increases for the sake of any poor soul to come under the influence of her court.

Just that sentence alone gives her motives away.  I am becoming more and more disillusioned in "the rule of law" in our country. It is being abused!


19 posted on 08/18/2006 7:14:18 AM PDT by HawaiianGecko (Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HawaiianGecko

She's a political hack that probably got a call from Old Jimmy Carter himself before she made her ruling.


20 posted on 08/18/2006 7:17:10 AM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

bump


21 posted on 08/18/2006 7:20:19 AM PDT by GOPJ (Profiling isn't aimed at demonizing Muslims; it's aimed at saving lives, including Muslims. Stiletto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HawaiianGecko

"I am becoming more and more disillusioned in "the rule of law" in our country. It is being abused!"

Of coures it is being abused. Selective enforcement of the law has been occurring for decades. Check the Kennedy cases and the OJ Simpson case out.


22 posted on 08/18/2006 7:22:14 AM PDT by Neoliberalnot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
tobyhill wrote:
This judge needed to be booted from the case from the start for prejudicial bias.

Are you kiddin'? That's why she GOT the case to begin with!

- John

23 posted on 08/18/2006 7:24:36 AM PDT by Fishrrman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Fishrrman

I know how she got the case, judge shopping, but I also blame the Government Lawyers for not filing any motions to have her removed based anything because everything she's done is idiotic.


24 posted on 08/18/2006 7:29:07 AM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Activist, Leftist, Carter Appointee, Diggs-Taylor
25 posted on 08/18/2006 7:30:37 AM PDT by Obadiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: radar101

National Lawyers Guild, a Commie front. Say no more.


26 posted on 08/18/2006 7:31:19 AM PDT by Inwoodian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Fishrrman

BTW; part of her ruling says she's giving standing because of the "very secrecy of activity" but then she says she's giving standing because the program isn't so secret. She said the plaintiffs suffered damages but can only come up with restricted in their jobs yet doesn't even know who or how they're being restricted. She can't even make heads or tails of her own ruling and that makes me wonder if she was bought out?


27 posted on 08/18/2006 7:36:26 AM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

""There are no hereditary kings in America and no power not created by the Constitution," U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of Detroit said in a 43-page opinion blasting the program."

Tell that to 5 supreme court justices.


28 posted on 08/18/2006 7:40:56 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz ("If you liked what Liberal Leadership did for Israel, you'll LOVE what it can do for America!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz
"no power not created by the Constitution"

If she actually believes and respects this then she would know that her ruling contradicts it because she's intruding on the executives authority. She is also inserting herself in the conduct of war by the attempted elimination of a military operation. Now she and with the GITMO USSC ruling have arbitrarily decided that they are the most important decider's of how a war is conducted.
29 posted on 08/18/2006 7:53:00 AM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook
She should be impeached by Congress, but they don't have the spine for anything remotely like wresting the reins of government from the judicial oligarchy.
---
Face the reality that no Democrat will ever vote to remove her from office for this, and possibly for anything. Therefore impeachment would be political theater and nothing more. I prefer to fight battles we can actually win.
30 posted on 08/18/2006 7:58:21 AM PDT by Cheburashka (World's only Spatula City certified spatula repair and maintenance specialist!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: fschmieg

You beat me to it.


31 posted on 08/18/2006 8:18:07 AM PDT by MarkeyD (The tree of liberty must from time to time be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
If the Rats think that she will help their cause and want to put "Democrat" by her name it's their loss

I don't know how it is where you live but here in southern Arizona all the Democrat campaign posters and signs OMIT the party affiliation. OTOH the Republican candidates proudly advertize theirs.

32 posted on 08/18/2006 8:52:59 AM PDT by Don Corleone (Leave the gun..take the cannoli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone

Here in North Texas it's solidly Republican and most of the signs for the Democrats just have a "D" by their name and the Republican Signs say,"Proud Republican".


33 posted on 08/18/2006 8:57:43 AM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

A Jimmy Carter appointee, apparently. Ah, yes, Jimmy Carter--the gift that keeps on giving....


34 posted on 08/18/2006 9:09:55 AM PDT by MizSterious (Anonymous sources often means "the voices in my head told me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

One word describes her: Kool-Aid Drinker


35 posted on 08/18/2006 9:47:33 AM PDT by radar101 (The two hallmarks of Liberals: Fantasy and Hypocrisy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
and no power not created by the Constitution

Beyond your comments, the Constitution confers exactly NO specific power to the courts to rule on the constitutionality of any law.

If the affirmative-action judge acually believed her statement, she would have not even heard the case.

36 posted on 08/18/2006 12:53:35 PM PDT by Sgt_Schultze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Sgt_Schultze

You're right on.


37 posted on 08/18/2006 1:43:41 PM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson