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

Skip to comments.

Who's afraid of Anna Diggs Taylor
Power Line ^ | August 18, 2006 | Scott Johnson

Posted on 08/18/2006 6:53:43 AM PDT by yoe

Anyone who knows what legal analysis and argument looks like -- anyone who knows the requisites of legal reasoning -- must look at the ( handiwork) of Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in the NSA case in amazement. It is a pathetic piece of work. If it had been submitted by a student in my second year legal writing class at the University of St. Thomas Law School, it would have earned a failing grade.

On the issue of the legality of warrantless interception of enemy communication, for example, it is entirely conclusory. It does not address precedent. It assumes its conclusion, framing the issue as whether the president can break the law. It simply asserts that the NSA eavesdropping program is "obviously in violation of the Fourth Amendment" -- apparently because it is warrantless. (Wrong.) She sagely observes that the "President of the United States is himself created by that same Constitution" -- you know, the one with the Fourth Amendment that she apparently thinks requires warrants in all cases.

Judge Taylor is like the big bad wolf in the fairly tale. She huffs and she puffs. I think she's facing the brick house that can't be blown down -- she at least can't blow it down -- but the end of this unedifying fairy tale has yet to be written by a higher and presumably more competent authority.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: aclu; annadiggstaylor; carterstrikesagain; ruling
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-62 last
To: Sandy

Remember, district courts in 5 of the 11 circuits had already ruled in the Presidents favor, including the 9th. The 6th was about the their best remaining bet..


51 posted on 08/18/2006 1:24:09 PM PDT by Jim Verdolini (We had it all, but the RINOs stalked the land and everything they touched was as dung and ashes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Jim Verdolini
Remember, district courts in 5 of the 11 circuits had already ruled in the Presidents favor, including the 9th.

I don't know who told you that, but it's not true in the least. This is the first time this matter has been addressed by a federal court.

52 posted on 08/18/2006 1:42:37 PM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Oberon

It use to be fiscally responsible also. I don't feel like I have given any thing up to let government listen to terrorist.
People try to expand the argument into they are listening to them when they are not.


53 posted on 08/18/2006 1:43:28 PM PDT by Tspud1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Tspud1

I don't think I'm going to get you to understand what I'm saying. Sorry.


54 posted on 08/18/2006 2:29:06 PM PDT by Oberon (What does it take to make government shrink?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: yoe
Who's afraid? Perhaps "afraid" isn't quite correct, but "shocked and appalled" is more accurate for me.

I find it shocking that a single person, oblivious to anything more than her own opinions and political bias, can endanger an entire country by attempting to stop law enforcement from using a legal and effective tool against Islamic fascists.

If the Islamic fascists ever do successfully hit us again, it would be ironic if she were to experience it personally. I wish that irony on ALL liberals.

55 posted on 08/18/2006 4:17:21 PM PDT by GBA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oberon

Do you check for the boogey man under the bed every night?


56 posted on 08/18/2006 4:31:23 PM PDT by Tspud1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Tspud1

I wish you all the best. Have a good life, and thank you for being a Freeper.


57 posted on 08/18/2006 5:35:30 PM PDT by Oberon (What does it take to make government shrink?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: 3AngelaD

This is the best response I've seen.

Jimmy Carter claims be have been a "nuclear engineer" after his stint in the Navy. If Jimmy "Clueless" Carter is a nuclear engineer, I'm Albert Einstein.


58 posted on 08/19/2006 7:15:09 AM PDT by duckandcover
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Oberon

Thanks, same to you.


59 posted on 08/19/2006 9:13:38 AM PDT by Tspud1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Sandy
Hardly. If they had judge shopped, they wouldn't be in the 6th Circuit.

Are you sure about that?

J

60 posted on 08/22/2006 9:05:56 PM PDT by upchuck (Q:Why does President Bush support amnesty for illegal aliens? A:Read this: http://tinyurl.com/nyvno)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
Are you sure about that?

Yes. The district court opinion is pretty irrelevant, really. What happens on appeal is all that matters, and the 6th Circuit CoA is anything but a pushover. Just getting beyond the standing question will be a pretty tough sell. Not impossible, but certainly no cakewalk.

61 posted on 08/22/2006 10:28:28 PM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

Comment #62 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-62 last

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