Eavesdropping Ruling a Judicial Farce

Creators Syndicate / Real Clear Politics ^ | August 28, 2006 | Robert Novak

[baystaterebel]

WASHINGTON -- The background of a federal district court declaring President Bush's national security eavesdropping unconstitutional was a conservative's fantasy. The judge, a former Democratic politician and civil rights activist, wrote what read more like a political manifesto than a judicial opinion. What's more, she was responsible for contributions to an organization that was a plaintiff in the case she decided.

District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's decision has been stayed and probably will be reversed by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. Nevertheless, she was playing more than a cameo role on the stage of history. For this opinion ever to have been issued by an activist judge in Detroit, in the opinion of several legal scholars and distinguished lawyers whom I contacted, shows the judiciary in a state of chaos.

[baystaterebel]

The fact that her blatant conflict of intrest issues and the twisted logic behind her ruling dont get much media play pretty much errect a statue to the media liberal leanings.

[uptoolate]

That might seem an obvious conflict of interest, but the canons of conduct for federal judges are unclear as to whether Taylor was in violation. Liberal scholars, quick to claim conflict of interest by Justice Antonin Scalia on far less evidence, gave Taylor the benefit of the doubt. Her ACLU ties, said New York University's Stephen Gillers, would not "raise reasonable questions about her partiality on the issue of warrantless wiretapping." Gillers conceded, however, that she should have disclosed the connection "because it avoids suspicion later."

This is the paragraph that just blew me away.

This would be the best example of the error in the liberal mindset I've so far seen.

[marlon]

Yeah but at least she didn't going fishing with one of the ACLU members. Now that would have been a conflict (well according to the moonbats)

[Skooz]

bump

[uptoolate]

My fear is that no recource will be taken against her. The ruling will be overturned, but she will still be allowed a seat on the bench.

[xzins]

Lower courts should not be permitted to rule on Constitutional level branches of our government. Congress and the President have teams of lawyers and a mandate by their oath to be true to the constitution.

Lower court disagreements should be permitted only as requests for rulings from the US Supreme Court, a parallel Constitutional branch of government.

A district court should be required to request an appeals court to forward a request for ruling to the Scotus.

[newcthem]

This approach makes the most sense. There is no way a low level political hack should be in a position to deny the other branches of government their ability to function.

[xzins]

It's is crazy to make an entire legislative process captive to the whims, infirmities, or prejudices of one person in Whereever USA.

Why have a Congress and President at all?

[Jacquerie]

The ruling will be overturned, but she will still be allowed a seat on the bench.

It is unfortunate that by tradition, judges must commit actual crimes before they are even considered for firing.

This woman is incompetent and should be impeached/fired. I will never understand why grossly unqualified judges are permitted to make lifetime political decisions without fear of losing their jobs. Their near total immunity is a dangerous aberration of our constitutional republic.

[Suzy Quzy]

Hey Bob Novak....why not write about the fiasco that you started??? Why don't you EXPOSE Armitage/Powell as the LEAKERS!!

[stan_sipple]

she is the robed enemy within. the fisa court approved warrantless wiretapping

[stan_sipple]

if this judge is really just a red diaper doper baby on the bench, why such a tepid response from the attorney general? he looks out of his league unfortunately

[xzins]

I'm not sure the administration doesn't welcome this ridiculous ruling. It plays into their hands, and will easily give another victory to executive/cinc constitutional authority.

They couldn't have paid for a better result.

(Rove working overtime again. :>)

[Eva]

There needs to be some form of Judicial censor, when a judge exhibits such blatant conflict of interest and partisan interpretation of the law, twisting the law until it is unrecognizable as an interpretation of the US constitution.

[stan_sipple]

true, but Rove must have miscalculated with the Hamdan decision, letting the Supremes tube us