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

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: 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: 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 ]

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