Skip to comments.Judge Anne Diggs Taylor rules against FDR
Posted on 08/20/2006 9:26:23 PM PDT by Sergeant Tim
In his first Inaugural Address, March 4, 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt said:
This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itselfnameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory.
Fear itself was Judge Anne Diggs Taylors lone justification for granting standing to the plaintiffs in A.C.L.U. v N.S.A. In her decision, the judge wrote:
Plaintiffs here contend that the TSP [Terrorist Surveillance Program] has interfered with their ability to carry out their professional responsibilities in a variety of ways, including that the TSP has had a significant impact on their ability to talk with sources, locate witnesses, conduct scholarship, engage in advocacy and communicate with persons who are outside of the United States, including in the Middle East and Asia. Plaintiffs have submitted several declarations to that effect All of the Plaintiffs contend that the TSP has caused clients, witnesses and sources to discontinue their communications with plaintiffs out of fear that their communications will be intercepted. They also allege injury based on the increased financial burden they incur in having to travel substantial distances to meet personally with their clients and others relevant to their cases.
The NSA seeks to intercept the enemys communications and not one plaintiff could show they have suffered an injury in fact an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. She decided for the plaintiffs based only upon the plaintiffs well founded belief. Within her decision, the judge points out the September 14, 2001, Joint Resolution of Congress (Senate Resolution 23):
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
Perhaps Judge Anne Diggs Taylor just does not know what the meaning of all is. After all, she left out altogether that the Constitution confers all authority to Congress to declare and fund war and to the president to conduct war and no authority at all to the judicial branch in such matters. In order to insert herself, as a federal judge, into matters of war, she had to first confer, by proxy, standing upon the only party actually injured by the Terrorist Surveillance Program: the enemy.
It seems as if Congress authorizing President George W. Bush to injure the enemy has angered the judge. What else explains her, by proxy, granting the injured enemy standing, disregarding FDRs words about fear itself, and granting uninjured plaintiffs standing based solely upon fear? Barring that, the only other possible explanation would be that she made a political decision and we all know a federal judge would never do that.
Judge Diggs Taylors decision would saddle the defense of our nation by this and all future Presidents with an impossible burden. For example, the communications of a person abroad to a terrorist abroad to confirm a hotel reservation could be intercepted yet the communications of a person in the United States to that same terrorist, to confirm that same reservation, could not be intercepted without a warrant. If the NSA were tracking that one lone terrorist, perhaps taking the time before or after the fact to get a warrant would be reasonable. Yet our intelligence agencies are attempting to gather information about the activities and whereabouts of thousands of terrorists, a myriad or organizations, and a worldwide network that must communicate from afar or risk giving away their associations and deadly missions by physically meeting instead.
What explains the joy expressed about this decision by the editors of the New York Times? Their words betray them:
She also offered a scathing condemnation of what lies behind the wiretapping Mr. Bushs attempt to expand his powers to the point that he can place himself beyond the reach of Congress, judges or the Constitution There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution, wrote Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the United States District Court in Detroit. Her decision was based on a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union The ruling eviscerated the absurd notion on which the administrations arguments have been based: that Congress authorized Mr. Bush to do whatever he thinks is necessary when it authorized the invasion of Afghanistan.
Yet in the Times final paragraph are all of the words you need to read to discover why the plaintiffs filed in her court and the judge decided as she did:
one judge in Michigan has done what 535 members of Congress have so abysmally failed to do. She has reasserted the rule of law over a lawless administration.
The American people have successfully directed those empowered by the Constitution to defend our nation since 1789. Yet the New York Times, the ACLU, and activists judges seek to fix what is not broke.
lol, someone wrote 'SUPREMECOURTSTACKER' in the keywords...
And to that end I beg pardon, as I had no intent to hijack the thread. I think that the article presents an intriguing POV and a valid perspective...
Far worse. The Islamic fascists are hell bent on killing all of us. The domestic enemies would have us all killed for their delusions and power lust.
President Bush should simply pull an 'Andrew Jackson' and completely ignore her ruling.
A Correction was Necessary!
Please read post# 27.....
I also like the fact that FDR had kidnappers, bank robbers and Nazi saboteurs fried.
I admire FDR for only one thing: he successfully led this nation against the killing machines of Japan and Germany during World War II. Regardless of his other political beliefs, he deserves credit for that. Yet none of that is relative to this post. 'Fear itself' and the use of it by those politically opposed to Goerge W. Bush is the point of this thread.
FDR literally gave eastern europe to Stalin like he personally owned it.. His wife was a commie, and Alger Hiss(and Chambers) was a trusted employee of his... FDR was pretty much like our John Conyers.. and his wife resembled Henry Waxman in drag..
Uh Oh. Not another one of them "LIHOP" people .... Ug.
"Our domestic enemies are almost as sick as our Islamofascist enemies."
Agree with Farlander ... the NYT editorial board and their ilk are FAR WORSE. They're a native-born sleeper cell, who should know better.
Do you recall the NYT making the same kind of ruckus when the previous administration took the FBI files of some 900 Americans? Did the ACLU sue over it? I just don't remember.
This old Bit@h is a Carter appointee, for Heaven's sake, what should we expect? An incompetent appoints an incompetent. This was an absolutely absurd ruling. I agree with the author, the only possible injured party she could find is the "enemy".
No, actually I agree with him on all but the allegation about Pearl Harbor. He's right, BUT FDR did guide us through the Second World War and, as such he receives my respect.
DUmocrats are on the same team as the islamonazis...both seek our defeat. If today's politicians, judges, etc. can't understand the WOT then they shouldn't be anywhere near positions of power.