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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last
Judicial madness - utter madness........a liberal's dream.
1 posted on 08/18/2006 6:53:43 AM PDT by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: yoe

This woman is an idiot; everything to her is "civil rights."

Moron.


2 posted on 08/18/2006 6:58:03 AM PDT by GianniV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

Who's afraid of Anna Diggs Taylor? I'm afraid of Anna Diggs Taylor and the rest of these liberal judicial meatheads who are going to get a lot of innocent Americans killed through their "no clue" rulings that are hamstringing the government in the war on terror !!!


3 posted on 08/18/2006 6:59:04 AM PDT by Obie Wan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe
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.

Ouch baby, very ouch..

4 posted on 08/18/2006 6:59:29 AM PDT by Paradox (The "smarter" the individual, the greater his power of self-deception.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe
The ACLU judge shopped and are probably very happy with the result.

But they'll get their ass kicked big time on appeal.

5 posted on 08/18/2006 7:00:27 AM PDT by upchuck (WHO decided immigration laws should not be enforced? That is NOT a rhetorical question.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

Jimmy Carter is the gift that just keeps on giving, isn't he? Only that sorry excuse for an American would have thought to name this woman to the federal bench.


6 posted on 08/18/2006 7:03:01 AM PDT by 3AngelaD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

Paging FNC's Judge Napolitano...


7 posted on 08/18/2006 7:04:17 AM PDT by mewzilla (Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

This Terrorist Sympathizer Wears a Black Robe and is Female!
http://americandaily.com/article/15144

In a shocking reminder of why Democrats should never be entrusted with power at any level, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit ruled that a surveillance program utilized by the Bush Administration in the war on terror is unconstitutional.

Who in the hell is Anna Diggs Taylor? And how in the name of all that is decent and righteous can an obscure federal judge unilaterally shut down a vital intelligence tool used by the U.S. Commander-in-Chief while the nation is at war?

As it turns out, Judge Taylor worked on Jimmy Carter’s presidential campaign in 1976 and was sworn in as a federal judge to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in 1979.

So, Anna Diggs Taylor was elevated beyond her capabilities during the administration of one of the worse presidents in U.S. history. Why does that fact not come as a great surprise?

Twenty six years after We the People booted the bumbling Jimmy Carter out of the Oval Office, his legacy of incompetence comes back to haunt America and all of the civilized world. Like a very bad penny, Jimmy Carter keeps coming back.

Despite her mind-numbing liberalism, surely Judge Taylor reads newspapers, watches television, browses the Internet or listens to the radio. Right?

Does September 09, 2001 ring a bill, Judge? What about the plot uncovered in the United Kingdom last week in which terrorists were in the final stages of “unimaginable mass murder?” A plot, by the way, which was discovered and dismantled in cooperation with U.S. intelligence authorities?

If Judge Taylor’s ruling ultimately stands, then it is point, match and championship for the terrorists. Osama bin Laden, with an assist from the Lady in Black from Detroit, will have trumped G.W. Bush, the American people and the cherished principles upon which this great nation was founded 230 years ago.

And history will note, probably in Arabic, that Islamic fascism prevailed in the war on terror because of an abuse of judicial power by a female terrorist sympathizer in a black robe, sans only the burka.


8 posted on 08/18/2006 7:04:31 AM PDT by IrishMike (Democrats .... Stuck on Stupid, RINO's ...the most vicious judas goats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe
Here's another analysis along those same lines: Amateur Hour? A judge’s first-year failing-grade opinion
9 posted on 08/18/2006 7:07:22 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (Tom Gallagher - the anti-Crist [FL Governor, 2006 primary])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

mark


10 posted on 08/18/2006 7:10:43 AM PDT by don-o (Proudly posting without reading the thread since 1998. (stolen from one cool dude))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe
Her decision will not stand the test of the 6th U.S. Court of appeals or the Supreme Court - BUT in the mean time the drive-by media is having a heyday writing creative headlines.
11 posted on 08/18/2006 7:11:16 AM PDT by NavyCanDo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

When the core of your reasoning does NOT come from the Constitution, or any embodiment of case law, almost anything can be argued as 'legal'. Judge Taylor is working from an agenda, backwards from the premise, "Bush is WRONG."

I wouldn't want this woman interpreting the rules of the game of Monopoly, let alone acts of the Administration.


12 posted on 08/18/2006 7:16:11 AM PDT by alloysteel (My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling, but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

I think it's a consensus that Anna Diggs Taylor is indeed unconstitutional.

Move to impeach.


13 posted on 08/18/2006 7:17:05 AM PDT by rock_lobsta (cair = hamas = iran = EVIL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rock_lobsta
Even the Washington Post sounds embarrassed by the opinion.
14 posted on 08/18/2006 7:19:04 AM PDT by Paradox (The "smarter" the individual, the greater his power of self-deception.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: yoe
Y'all should download her ruling and take a look at it. From the first page (emphasis mine):
This is a challenge to the legality of a secret program (hereinafter "TSP") undisputedly inaugurated by the National Security Agency (hereinafter "NSA") at least by 2002 and continuing today, which intercepts without benefit of warrant or other judicial approval, prior or subsequent, the international telephone and internet communications of numerous persons and organizations within this country. The TSP has been acknowledged by this Administration to have been authorized by the President’s secret order during 2002 and reauthorized at least thirty times since.
I'm no lawyer, but I seem to recall a ruling by the FISA court that warrants were used (after the fact) for the intercepted calls.

Here's a link:

FISA JUDGES SAY BUSH WITHIN THE LAW

15 posted on 08/18/2006 7:20:08 AM PDT by upchuck (WHO decided immigration laws should not be enforced? That is NOT a rhetorical question.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe
"Who's afraid of Anna Diggs Taylor?"

Ummmm....her proctologist????....cause they have to schedule a double appointment every time she needs an exam??........(just guessing)...

16 posted on 08/18/2006 7:21:01 AM PDT by musicman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IrishMike
Does September 09, 2001 ring a bill, Judge?

Is this a reference to Ahmed Shah Massoud's death in Afghanistan? Or did the article mean two days later?

17 posted on 08/18/2006 7:21:03 AM PDT by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: yoe

Taylor isn't just judicially incompetent, she's a village idiot.


18 posted on 08/18/2006 7:21:04 AM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IrishMike

But don't forget one fact,it's NOT just Anna Diggs Taylor.The Federal Court system is loaded with people with the same mindset.This time it's Anna Diggs Taylor,next time it'll be another lib.The systems broke and it's time to fix it while we still have a chance !!!


19 posted on 08/18/2006 7:21:44 AM PDT by Obie Wan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: yoe

This is what affirmative action gets you.


20 posted on 08/18/2006 7:21:57 AM PDT by lady lawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra

....Is this a reference to Ahmed Shah Massoud's death in Afghanistan? Or did the article mean two days later?


.
.
.
.
The exploding camera.


21 posted on 08/18/2006 7:23:09 AM PDT by IrishMike (Democrats .... Stuck on Stupid, RINO's ...the most vicious judas goats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: yoe

This Ann Diigs Taylor judge is a senile moron who is so stupid she even won't hire smart law clerks to write a more intelligent opinion. This one was obviously penned by this idiot wind judge


22 posted on 08/18/2006 7:25:17 AM PDT by dennisw (Confucius say man who go through turnstile sideways going to Bangkok)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded
I hate to be a stick in the mud, but is there any Freeper here who is willing to see this ruling in terms of civil liberties, rather than just a security issue?

I'm just asking is all. If the NSA wanted to confiscate the firearms of anybody they wanted to using the same sort of process, there'd be any number of Freepers claiming the Second Amendment as an absolute right, and its abridgement prima facie tyranny.

The thing to remember is this: If they can do it to anyone, they can do it to you.

Now, fellas, proceed to shoot that argument down without calling me names. I posted it specifically for you to refute.

23 posted on 08/18/2006 7:29:51 AM PDT by Oberon (As a matter of fact I DO want fries with that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Paradox

You are correct. WP pretty much kicked her to the curb.


24 posted on 08/18/2006 7:29:53 AM PDT by gov_bean_ counter ( Helen Thomas on anticipating and handling a crisis: "I'll live under that bridge when I get to it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: yoe

Just another step in the dims grand scheme to set Dubya up for charges of impeachment, if they take control of Congress.


25 posted on 08/18/2006 7:32:21 AM PDT by The Sons of Liberty (Former SAC Trained Killer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

26 posted on 08/18/2006 7:47:06 AM PDT by shiva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oberon

Privacy is a false argument and has been for some time. Your insurance company and the credit bureaus have more on you than the feds do and you can do nothing about it. I would rather be secure knowing that the feds were looking over my shoulder and keeping me safe. I have nothing to hide, and in times of war, these steps are necessary.


27 posted on 08/18/2006 8:02:21 AM PDT by Thebaddog (Labs Rules! Brilliant!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: yoe

It doesn't matter if it gets overturned , it gives a-holes like Pelosi and Kennedy a chance to get up and say the President violated the Constitution. We all know that this idiot Carter appointee will be overturned, but the Libs get to kick the President until it is. When it is overturned it will probably be posted in the want ads of all the MSM press.


28 posted on 08/18/2006 8:03:26 AM PDT by mortal19440
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

"Taylor isn't just judicially incompetent, she's a village idiot."

No, she is political. This is not her first attempt to write law from the bench. Here is what I wrote for another local forum:

"I’ll begin with a brief bit on why this doesn’t matter. District Courts in 5 of the 11 districts had previously ruled that programs similar to the NSA terror listening program were legal. As late as last week in US v Rosen a federal District court ruled such program legal based on precedence. In addition 4 appeals court decisions and 1 Supreme Court opinion all supported the President. The body of case law was clear and definitive.

So, what do we have? We have the ACLU judge shopping for a political judge to make a ruling based on personal opinion and ideology and not the law. As desired the judge did exactly that. Fortunately, the 6th has a reputation for generally following the law and Constitution so I expect this to be killed on appeal pretty fast.

With that said, the question becomes ‘why’, as in why rule in a manner sure to be overturned? The answer is simple….nothing is sure in the Courts. Perhaps the Appeals Court will have a bad day or some member will be absent or ill and the court rules to uphold the decision. If so it Goes to the Supremes and they are infamous for making it up. The 20% chance the appeals process will uphold is therefore, worth the effort. Besides, the Judge gets her name in lights and the old media makes hay for a few days.

What was wrong with the decision…lots apparently. The best spin I read on it today was that the opinion was legally ‘thin’, meaning based on little. The bits about the 4th seem to ignore all previous case law and the most reversible bit is the issue of standing. Judge Taylor simply dismissed the issue as having little merit. That will be the reason for reversal if the appeals court does not want to make waves.

Now the question should be..’why do I say the ACLU Judge shopped and why is Judge Taylor considered a political judge?’

That is easy, it was widely reported the ACLU spent a good bit of time finding a case in just the right location before just the right sympathetic Judge. The Judge was considered sympathetic (partisan) because she has a track record. She previously cook the books to rig a Civil Rights case having to do with affirmative action. She was caught out and received a good bit of publicity and a chastising by the 6th Circuit.

This applies:

http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/boggs.html

So, what do we have when all is said and done, a decision by a partisan judge that will almost certainly be overturned and that is one decision out of about a dozen at the federal level on the issue. It keeps the anti-American left with an argument (until reversed) and the old media with water to carry in the real war, the war against Bush."





29 posted on 08/18/2006 8:07:58 AM 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 18 | View Replies]

To: Obie Wan

'going to get a lot of innocent Americans killed through their "no clue" rulings'...

I feel the same......this "judge" is placing me, my family and millions of other Americans in danger.

I pray some activist organization begin a movement against her.....hopefully, either get her off the bench or force our "esteemed" legislators to use the authority they have to stop and reverse the dangerous judicial rulings that can harm the U.S. and her citizens.


30 posted on 08/18/2006 8:10:57 AM PDT by 4integrity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jim Verdolini

I know she's political because even the press admits she's a Democrat.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1685866/posts


31 posted on 08/18/2006 8:11:13 AM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Thebaddog

"If you have done nothing wrong, comrade, you have nothing to fear." - Lavrenti Pavlovich Beria, 1899 - 1953

I grow concerned when our political principles make us sound like such a one as Beria.

32 posted on 08/18/2006 8:13:09 AM PDT by Oberon (As a matter of fact I DO want fries with that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Obie Wan
I'm afraid of Anna Diggs Taylor and the rest of these liberal judicial meatheads who are going to get a lot of innocent Americans killed through their "no clue" rulings that are hamstringing the government in the war on terror !!!

She's not that powerful. This ruling will have as much effect on the WOT as what I eat for lunch today. Her amateurish opinion has opened her up to ridicule -- and not just from the political Right.

33 posted on 08/18/2006 8:14:56 AM PDT by You Dirty Rats (I Love Free Republic!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla

why, he would rule the same way


34 posted on 08/18/2006 8:19:41 AM PDT by Tspud1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Paradox

When the Washington Post editorializes that a Leftist, Activist judicial opinion is worthless, that says everything about just how far off base this was.

Has one Senator made a statement yet supporting the opinion?


35 posted on 08/18/2006 8:20:53 AM PDT by You Dirty Rats (I Love Free Republic!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Oberon

If your aunt had balls , she'd be your uncle. Why argue the if's when life and death are at stake. I don't think the government has the time to waste on everyday conversations of law abiding citizens. What a boring job.


36 posted on 08/18/2006 8:24:58 AM PDT by Tspud1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Tspud1
Your argument would serve as well to defend a totalitarian military dictatorship. I mean, shouldn't one capable leader wield absolute power when life and death are at stake?

What price is too high under such circumstances?

37 posted on 08/18/2006 8:41:53 AM PDT by Oberon (As a matter of fact I DO want fries with that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: yoe
....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.

Uh, well no kidding. Anna Diggs Taylor is a poster child for the Democrat version of affirmative action.
Lower the standards far enough and Anna Diggs Taylor is what you get.

38 posted on 08/18/2006 8:45:21 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

The key is that if there were a Democrat in the White House, doing the very same thing, this woman would have ruled exactly opposite. I'd bet serious money on that.


39 posted on 08/18/2006 10:26:16 AM PDT by Aegedius (Veni, vidi, icked-kay utt-bay.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GianniV

Wel, until she is overturned, the Left media and the Dems will crow and lie and Bush and the GOP will suffer in Nov. That is simply the truth because people take in lies first and then with few dissents from the Admin. and what is the Conserv media, the wussy public just believes that Bush and the war on terror is , well, you know, made up!!!


40 posted on 08/18/2006 10:34:01 AM PDT by phillyfanatic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jim Verdolini

Well summarized.


41 posted on 08/18/2006 10:53:10 AM PDT by gogeo (The /sarc tag is a form of training wheels for those unable to discern intellectual subtlety.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla

Why would you want to page Napolitano? He was all in favor of Judge Diggs Taylor's decision.


42 posted on 08/18/2006 11:08:32 AM PDT by conservative blonde (Conservative Blonde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra

I was wondering the same thing. Did I miss something?


43 posted on 08/18/2006 11:43:26 AM PDT by Holicheese (Love to feel the rain in the summertime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Obie Wan

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.


44 posted on 08/18/2006 12:00:43 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

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.


45 posted on 08/18/2006 12:01:59 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Oberon

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.


46 posted on 08/18/2006 12:50:07 PM PDT by Tspud1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: NavyCanDo

Yup..

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?


47 posted on 08/18/2006 12:55:07 PM PDT by Livfreeordi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Oberon
I hate to be a stick in the mud,
OK, stickInTheMud ;^>

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.

48 posted on 08/18/2006 12:58:37 PM PDT by TeleStraightShooter (The Right To Take Life is NOT a Constitutional "Liberty" protected by the 14th Amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Tspud1
Actually, I'm not particularly concerned with the rights of a murderer...what I'm concerned about are the rights of you and me.

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?

49 posted on 08/18/2006 1:08:41 PM PDT by Oberon (What does it take to make government shrink?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
The ACLU judge shopped

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

50 posted on 08/18/2006 1:11:09 PM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


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