Skip to comments.Who's afraid of Anna Diggs Taylor
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.
Why would you want to page Napolitano? He was all in favor of Judge Diggs Taylor's decision.
I was wondering the same thing. Did I miss something?
Her ruling has been stayed. The chief effect has been to create headlines which the MSM can use to tar the administration. The barrage never ceases. If they can't throw bombs they throw tomatoes.
How would like to go before this judge if you had a real intereest at stake and knew that she has probbaly prejudged the matter? Scary.
Sorry you misunderstood. I was not arguing for a "benevelent
dictator" but rather while we are arguing the if's, they are making plans to KILL. I for one do not worry about the "mythical someone" listening in on my conversations because I
don't think they would find them interesting nor would they gain any knowledge about terror. You seem to be more worried about the "rights" of a murderer than protecting my children.
The liberal broadcast media has had a field day.
Listening to a montage on Limbaugh today , it was one reporter after another loudly calling this a BIG DEFEAT for..fill in the blank.. (Bush) ..(the Bush administration)..etc etc.
I'm taking bets..that when this is reversed by the 6th Circuit..and it will be.. if precedent is followed..you won't hear those same reporters loudly proclaiming it a BIG WIN for (Bush) ..(the Bush administration).
Any suckers want to take the bet?
If the NSA wanted to confiscate the firearms of anybody they wanted to using the same sort of process,
Depends on what you mean by "anybody they wanted"; I refer you to the 4th Admn:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"
If the NSA was snatching arms from citizens running guns to Hezbollah....
... I and certainly the courts would consider that a "unreasonable" seizure.
Give the government power to do something, and without fail the power will be misused, and the people abused. This is as certain as the sunrise.
It used to be that promoting small government was a core tenet of conservatism. Do we no longer even pay lip service to the idea?
Hardly. If they had judge shopped, they wouldn't be in the 6th Circuit.
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..
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.
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.
I don't think I'm going to get you to understand what I'm saying. Sorry.
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.
Do you check for the boogey man under the bed every night?
I wish you all the best. Have a good life, and thank you for being a Freeper.
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.
Thanks, same to you.
Are you sure about that?