Keyword: annadiggstaylor

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • In The War On Terror, Liberals Are More Dangerous Than Muslims (Don Feder 9/11 Meditation Alert)

    09/20/2006 3:24:37 AM PDT · by goldstategop · 37 replies · 2,445+ views
    Don Feder.com ^ | 09/19/06 | Don Feder
    In a recent commentary, former New York Mayor Ed Koch - a Democrat with at least half a brain (which makes him the leading intellectual light of his party) - asked rhetorically, "Why do so many Americans refuse to face the fact that our country is at war with international terrorism?" Because they're liberals? During the Spanish Civil War, as the climactic battle for Madrid approached, Nationalist leader Francisco Franco told a reporter: "I have four columns marching on Madrid and a fifth within the city ready to rise at my call." Franco's comment gave rise to the World War...
  • Hoekstra predicts jailing of reporters (NYT Traitors To Be Jailed By Year End)

    08/31/2006 1:55:22 PM PDT · by Mr. Brightside · 39 replies · 2,581+ views
    Hoekstra predicts jailing of reporters Thursday, August 31, 2006 By Myron Kukla The Grand Rapids Press HOLLAND -- New York Times reporters who broke the story of a three-year program of warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens will be in jail by yearend if they don't reveal their government sources, U.S. Rep. Peter Hoekstra predicted Wednesday. The revelation last December has been a devastating blow to intelligence gathering, said Hoekstra, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. "If people understood the threat out there (from terrorist organizations), Americans would be absolutely furious that the tools we have to track the terrorists have...
  • JUDGE WITH AN AGENDA (the "unconstitutional" surveillance judge has a secret)

    08/27/2006 7:26:46 AM PDT · by The Raven · 12 replies · 1,328+ views
    NY Post ^ | Editorial
    August 27, 2006 -- If there were any doubt that a federal judge's decision earlier this month declaring the Bush administration's warrantless-surveillance program unconstitutional was blatantly political, consider this: Judicial Watch reports that the judge, Anna Diggs Taylor, is an officer and trustee of a group that funds the American Civil Liberties Union's Michigan branch - which was a plaintiff in the case. Indeed, the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan's board of trustees, which includes Judge Taylor, makes all funding decisions for the group - and has given the local ACLU at least $125,000 since 1999. Legal-ethics experts disagree on...
  • Why Britain Stopped the Terror Plot

    08/25/2006 3:12:48 AM PDT · by rdb3 · 34 replies · 1,331+ views
    Insight Magazine via FPM ^ | 25 AUGUST 2006 | Insight Magazine
    Why Britain Stopped the Terror PlotBy Insight MagazineInsight Magazine | August 25, 2006 The Homeland Security Department has neither the legal nor technical tools to match the British capture of terrorist operatives before they were about to blow up passenger airliners.Officials said U.S. law would not have allowed the FBI to conduct the type of surveillance that led Britain to uncover the al Qaeda cell and capture what could be the network’s chief. They said the department also does not have the funding to detect new types of bombs used by al Qaeda.''What helped the British in this case is...
  • A Law Unto Herself

    08/23/2006 7:00:28 AM PDT · by yoe · 16 replies · 984+ views
    New York Times ^ | August 23, 2006 | ANN ALTHOUSE
    TO end her opinion in American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency — the case that enjoins President Bush’s warrantless surveillance program — Judge Anna Diggs Taylor quoted Earl Warren (referring to him as “Justice Warren,” not “Chief Justice Warren,” as if she wanted to spotlight her carelessness): “It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of ... those liberties ... which makes the defense of the nation worthwhile.”
  • Bad Judges Make Bad Law

    08/23/2006 1:52:12 PM PDT · by Congressman Billybob · 28 replies · 1,333+ views
    Last week US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, in Detroit, Michigan, ruled that the National Security Agency’s overseas communications intercept program was unconstitutional. This is tied for the worst decision I’ve ever read, in 36 years as a member of the bar, both federal and state. Dozens of pundits have already written about aspects of her decision that are egregiously wrong. Even the august New York Times, which opposes the NSA program and favors Judge Taylor’s result, still has called her opinion “badly reasoned.” It’s important that lawyers, legal writers, and experienced laymen be able to recognize a thoroughly incompetent...
  • (Judge Anna Diggs) Taylor Conflicted? (trustee to an organization that donated $ to the ACLU)

    08/23/2006 11:03:49 AM PDT · by lowbridge · 18 replies · 1,096+ views
    http://www.captainsquartersblog.com ^ | August 22, 2006 | Ed Morrisey
    Taylor Conflicted? The judge who ruled against the government and ruled the NSA terrorist surveillance program unconstitutional may have had an undisclosed conflict of interest. Anna Diggs Taylor also serves as a trustee and officer to an organization that donated $45,000 to the Michigan chapter of the ACLU -- which happened to be one of the plaintiffs in the case (via Hot Air): Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and judicial abuse, announced today that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who last week ruled the government’s warrantless wiretapping program unconstitutional, serves as a Secretary and...
  • Ideology 1, Law 0: Another Strange Decision

    08/23/2006 4:40:59 AM PDT · by Molly Pitcher · 77 replies · 1,237+ views
    Townhall ^ | 8/23/06 | Paul Greenberg
    Who is Anna Diggs Taylor and what does she have against national security? The answer to the first question is: a U.S. district judge in Detroit. The answer to the second is as mysterious as the decision she handed down Thursday. In her 44-page ruling, Judge Taylor ordered the National Security Agency to stop monitoring international calls to and from this country, aka "domestic spying" in New York Times style. The judge found the practice not just illegal but unconstitutional. And also un-American in just about every crass, rhetorical way she could. The crux of her opinion reads like an...
  • Judge Anna Diggs Taylor Faces "Conflict Of Interest" Scrutiny

    08/23/2006 6:21:13 AM PDT · by Xth Legion · 7 replies · 1,118+ views
    Washington, DC -- Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, the U.S. District Judge who presided over the highly controversial government wiretapping case, and decided against the President, may have had a conflict of interest that should have precluded her from judging the case. According to research by Judicial Watch, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor serves as the Secretary and Trustee of a foundation that donated funds to the ACLU of Michigan, a Plaintiff in the case.
  • Caption Ann Beeson, ACLU attorney in the case against the government's wiretapping policy

    08/23/2006 4:33:25 AM PDT · by redstates4ever · 52 replies · 1,360+ views
    Yahoo! News Photos ^ | 8/17/06 | staff
    "Ann Beeson, the American Civil Liberties Union's associate legal director and the lead attorney for the plaintiffs challenging the government's wiretapping policy, addresses the media in Detroit, in this June 12, 2006, file photo. A federal judge ruled Thursday, Aug. 17, 2006 that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it. U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy. "Ann Beeson, the American Civil Liberties Union associate legal director and...
  • DFU SONG: Gilligan's Island (sit back my friends and hear about crooked judge - Anna Diggs Taylor)

    08/22/2006 9:32:50 PM PDT · by doug from upland · 25 replies · 828+ views
    DFU SONGS ^ | 8-2006 | Lyrics, Doug from Upland
  • NSA Judge Anna Diggs Taylor Secretary of Fund that bankrolled Michigan ACLU

    08/22/2006 8:06:06 PM PDT · by motife · 53 replies · 1,834+ views
    Judicial Watch ^ | 8/21/06 | Judicial Watch
    U.S. District Judge Who Presided Over Government Wiretapping Case May Have Had Conflict of Interest (Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and judicial abuse, announced today that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who last week ruled the government’s warrantless wiretapping program unconstitutional, serves as a Secretary and Trustee for a foundation that donated funds to the ACLU of Michigan, a plaintiff in the case (ACLU et. al v. National Security Agency). Judicial Watch discovered the potential conflict of interest after reviewing Judge Diggs Taylor’s financial disclosure statements. According to her 2003 and 2004...
  • Caption Federal Judge Anna Diggs Taylor (vanity)

    08/22/2006 11:52:04 AM PDT · by redstates4ever · 54 replies · 2,383+ views
    Debbie Schussel's blog ^ | 8/22/06 | Debbie Schlussel
  • Losing touch

    08/22/2006 6:40:04 AM PDT · by Graybeard58 · 12 replies · 440+ views
    Waterbury Republican-American ^ | August 22, 2006 | Editorial
    Item: British authorities shatter a conspiracy by Islamists in London to kill thousands of innocent people by blowing up nine passenger airliners over the Atlantic Ocean. Officials cite human intelligence and electronic surveillance by British, U.S. and Pakistani services. Item: Less than a week later, a federal judge in Michigan rules some of the methods that brought the London terrorists to justice before they could hurt anyone are illegal. Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, a Carter appointee, finds warrantless wiretaps by the National Security Agency of calls originating overseas are illegal and sides with the plaintiff, the American Civil Liberties Union....
  • U.S. District Judge Who Presided Over Government Wiretapping ... Conflict of Interest

    08/22/2006 5:33:26 AM PDT · by IrishMike · 60 replies · 2,603+ views
    Chronwatch ^ | Tuesday, August 22, 2006 | Judicial Watch
    Judge Anna Diggs Taylor Serves as Secretary and Trustee of Foundation that donated funds to ACLU of Michigan, a Plaintiff in the Case Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and judicial abuse, announced today that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who last week ruled the government’s warrantless wiretapping program unconstitutional, serves as a Secretary and Trustee for a foundation that donated funds to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan, a plaintiff in the case ACLU et al. v. National Security Agency. Judicial Watch discovered the potential conflict of interest after reviewing Judge Diggs...
  • Pre-Emptive Surveillance(Great read!)

    08/21/2006 1:22:31 PM PDT · by kellynla · 2 replies · 645+ views
    American Enterprise Institute ^ | August 21, 2006 | James Q. Wilson
    Federal district court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor has ruled that the warrantless interception of telephone and Internet calls between a foreign agent and American persons is illegal and unconstitutional. It is possible that she is right about the illegality, but she is almost surely wrong that it is unconstitutional. The government has appealed this decision to the Sixth Circuit. No one can say what it will decide, although other appeals courts have tolerated such surveillance. Ultimately the Supreme Court will have to decide the matter. The constitutional arguments against the surveillance are unpersuasive. A Washington Post editorial dismissed them as...
  • When Bad Decisions Go Good

    08/21/2006 11:33:39 AM PDT · by Jane2005 · 2 replies · 233+ views
    TCS Daily ^ | 8/21/2006 | Michael Rosen
    When is a bad decision good? When it yields unexpectedly good returns. On Thursday, in a Detroit federal court, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor issued a disturbing and flawed ruling that essentially struck down the Bush administration's Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP). The plaintiffs in this case -- including the inscrutable Christopher Hitchens, an otherwise resolute ally of the president's in the war against Islamic fascism; the ACLU; the Council on American Islamic Relations; Greenpeace; the publisher of The American Prospect; an NYU professor; and assorted attorneys -- apparently hand-picked a court and a judge that would deliver the desired result. But...
  • The Judicial Coffin

    08/21/2006 9:26:48 AM PDT · by unionblue83 · 4 replies · 425+ views
    Front Page Magazine ^ | 21 August 2006 | Joseph Klein
    "Yet thoroughly imbued with a reverence for the guarantied rights of individuals, I was slow to adopt the strong measures, which by degrees I have been forced to regard as being within the exceptions of the Constitution and as indispensable to the public Safety. Nothing is better known to history than that Courts of justice are utterly incompetent to such cases.” These were not the words of George W. Bush. They were spoken by President Abraham Lincoln, when explaining the extraordinary measures such as suspension of the writ of habeas corpus that he took to deal with “Rebellion”. Rebellion was...
  • Carter's revenge: His judge thwarts security

    08/21/2006 6:17:11 AM PDT · by billorites · 23 replies · 748+ views
    Manchester Union Leader ^ | August 21, 2006 | Editorial
    JIMMY CARTER has criticized, but has been powerless to stop, the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping of al-Qaida suspects' communications. Until last week, that is. On Thursday U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, a former civil rights activist appointed to the federal bench by Carter in 1979, ruled the wiretapping program unconstitutional. The plaintiffs were journalists, attorneys and activists who want to contact al-Qaida members and suspects overseas. They alleged that the NSAs practice of monitoring international communications of al-Qaida members and those suspected of being in or aiding the group violated their First and Fourth Amendment rights. How? Terrorists and...
  • A judicial hit piece

    08/21/2006 4:36:16 AM PDT · by Laverne · 21 replies · 1,050+ views
    Washington TImes ^ | 8/21/06 | Editorial
    There is poor reasoning, and then there is head-spinningly, jaw-droppingly poor reasoning. U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's angry 44-page ruling against NSA terrorism surveillance is the latter, and constitutes little more than a political stunt, with ever-so-helpful declarations like "There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution." The American Civil Liberties Union forum-shopped this lawsuit, handed it to a reliably left-liberal Jimmy Carter appointee in Detroit and got its desired result.
  • Judge Anne Diggs Taylor rules against FDR

    08/20/2006 9:26:23 PM PDT · by Sergeant Tim · 46 replies · 2,139+ views
    Stop the New York Times ^ | August 21, 2006 | editors
    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 itself—nameless, 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 Taylor’s lone justification for granting...
  • Amateur Hour?

    08/20/2006 7:14:26 AM PDT · by yoe · 28 replies · 1,493+ views
    National Review OL ^ | August 18, 2006 | Bryan Cunningham
    A judge’s first-year failing-grade opinion. The Honorable Anna Diggs-Taylor probably means well. The lone judge in American history to order a president to halt in wartime a foreign-intelligence-collection program that has undoubtedly saved lives probably sympathizes with the journalists, and others, who are suing to stop the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) in which NSA intercepts foreign-U.S. terrorist communications. She probably feels in her heart the program is wrong, and undoubtedly hears the footsteps of the federal judicial panel moving towards taking this case away from her and consolidating it with others. We can sympathize with her motives, and even share...
  • Humor Break: Act II Anna Diggs Taylor, The Musical Song: I’ve Made a New Trial Motion

    08/20/2006 2:10:43 PM PDT · by MaggieCarta · 2 replies · 256+ views
    Vanity | 08/20/06 | MaggieCarta
    (Enter, Stage Right, the AG) Song: I’ve Made a New Trial Motion Tune: I Second that Emotion Maybe you’d like terrorists in our streets But I don’t want a 9/11 repeat Maybe you’d throw away a tapped phone call, But the smart money says your decision’s gonna fall Oh little girl Chorus In this case, right from the start “Standing” is a charming term of art And if you feel like doubtin’ me ’Mongst all this commotion, I’ve made a new trial motion Maybe you think Hezbollah runs Motown. Since you owe your job to that Carter clown. Maybe you...
  • Who's Behind the ACLU NSA Lawsuit . . . And Why Are They Lying?

    08/19/2006 11:04:58 AM PDT · by El Oviedo · 14 replies · 1,996+ views
    debbieschlusel.com ^ | August 18, 2006 | Debbie Schlussel
    You've heard a lot about the ACLU lawsuit since its filing yesterday. But you haven't heard much about its less famous plaintiffs, plaintiffs with whom I'm all too familiar and about whom I've written a great deal. The details on these individuals makes the National Security Agency's monitoring of phone calls not just warranted, but a necessity. I'm referring to ACLU lawyers Noel Saleh, Mohammed Abdrabboh, and Nabih Ayad, the ACLU Plaintiffs named in the yesterday's Complaint, attorney William Swor, a member National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and Nazih Hassan--all named in the lawsuit. They are exactly the kind...
  • A Reckless Decision That Will Be Reversed

    The August 17 decision in ACLU v. NSA declaring unconstitutional the National Security Agency’s foreign intelligence surveillance program is poorly reasoned, reckless, and easy for an appeals court to reverse. Space here limits describing even the categories, let alone the instances, of errors in Judge Anna Diggs Taylor’s opinion. Judge Taylor states conclusions without any analysis at all. She notes, for example, the plaintiffs’ claim that the NSA program violates the Administrative Procedure Act and, 39 pages later, concludes that it does. The pages in between lack any mention, even a description, of this claim. Judge Taylor simply skipped it....
  • Hard to predict 6th Circuit's NSA ruling (AP does it again)

    08/19/2006 8:48:41 AM PDT · by Westpole · 12 replies · 673+ views
    CINCINNATI - Even though the administration's warrantless surveillance program is heading toward an appellate court loaded with Bush appointees, the court's mixed record makes it difficult to predict how it will view the surveillance, lawyers said. ADVERTISEMENT "It is not a foregone conclusion that a conservative-dominated court is going to say, ' President Bush did this and we're going to uphold what he wants,'" said Robert A. Sedler, a law professor at Wayne State University. "There are many issues in this case. Conservative judges often have a very strongly libertarian streak."
  • Surveilling Injustice

    08/19/2006 6:02:22 AM PDT · by MNJohnnie · 12 replies · 410+ views
    National Review On Line ^ | 08-18-06 | The Editors
    Once upon a time, the courts of the United States acted in the interests of the United States. They knew that international affairs, the conduct of war, and the protection of Americans from foreign threats stood far beyond the judicial ken. As Supreme Court justice Robert Jackson wrote in 1936, sensitive matters of foreign policy and national security involve “decisions of a kind for which the Judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities nor responsibility and which has long been held to belong in the domain of political power not subject to judicial intrusion or inquiry.” Enter Anna Diggs Taylor, chief judge...
  • Experts Fault Reasoning in Surveillance Decision

    08/19/2006 5:53:41 AM PDT · by libstripper · 16 replies · 704+ views
    The New York Times ^ | August 19, 2006 | ADAM LIPTAK
    Even legal experts who agreed with a federal judge’s conclusion on Thursday that a National Security Agency surveillance program is unlawful were distancing themselves from the decision’s reasoning and rhetoric yesterday. They said the opinion overlooked important precedents, failed to engage the government’s major arguments, used circular reasoning, substituted passion for analysis and did not even offer the best reasons for its own conclusions. Discomfort with the quality of the decision is almost universal, said Howard J. Bashman, a Pennsylvania lawyer whose Web log provides comprehensive and nonpartisan reports on legal developments. “It does appear,” Mr. Bashman said, “that folks...
  • Humor Break: SONG: My Law School Told Me You Better Shop Around. (Anna Diggs Taylor: The Musical)

    08/19/2006 6:51:10 AM PDT · by MaggieCarta · 13 replies · 1,083+ views
    Vanity | 08/19/06 | MaggieCarta
    SONG: My Law School Told Me You Better Shop Around. (Tune: My Momma Told Me You Better Shop Around) Just because you've briefed a big case now There's still some things that you must understand now Before you step into court with demands now Make your choice nonrandom as you can now My law school taught me: You better shop around There's some knowledge I want to bestow now Know which way that the wind's gonna blow now Judgments come and judgments are gonna go now The more you look, you’ll find one apropos, now My law school taught me:...
  • Ruling Against Wiretaps Further Sharpens Partisan Divide

    08/19/2006 3:34:49 AM PDT · by dirtboy · 37 replies · 784+ views
    Wash ComPost ^ | 8/19/2006 | Jonathan Weisman
    A federal judge's ruling that the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping is unconstitutional set off a flurry of political responses yesterday, as Republicans tried to keep control of the national security debate amid signs that their own party's ranks may be breaking under the pressure of the Iraq war. President Bush concluded a discussion on the economy with a challenge to Democrats, many of whom had hailed U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's ruling that the NSA's wiretapping efforts violate both the Bill of Rights and federal law. "Those who herald this decision simply do not understand the nature of...
  • Carter Appointee Gives Special Rights to Americans She Kills

    08/19/2006 3:58:25 AM PDT · by PurpleMountains · 3 replies · 357+ views
    From Sea to Shining Sea ^ | 8/19/06 | Purple Mountains
    If there was ever any doubt in the mind of a moderate or a conservative that the extreme left has totally taken over the mainstream press in this country, that doubt should have been completely erased by listening to a tape run by Rush Limbaugh on his radio program Friday. The tape contained several clips of left-wing TV and radio talking heads (including Bob Schieffer of CBS) making comments about the Michigan District Court judge’s incredible decision
  • Warrantless spying vital to U.S., Bush says

    08/18/2006 5:20:12 PM PDT · by Dubya · 107 replies · 1,171+ views
    Associated Press ^ | Aug. 18, 2006 | DEB RIECHMANN
    DETROIT — The first — but surely not the last — legal ruling over the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program was unequivocal: According to the Constitution, it should not exist. ADVERTISEMENT U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled Thursday that the National Security Agency program violates the rights to free speech and privacy as well as the separation of powers, and said the administration appeared to argue that the president has the "inherent power" to violate laws. "We must first note that the Office of the Chief Executive has itself been created, with its powers, by the Constitution," Taylor wrote....
  • Here's how the ACLU can support the war

    08/18/2006 2:19:57 PM PDT · by Sergeant Tim · 6 replies · 443+ views
    Mark Levin Fan site ^ | August 18, 2006 | Segeant Tim
    The Wall Street Journal's suggestion that "Perhaps the plaintiffs should have sued the New York Times" misses the mark. What Judge Anna Diggs Taylor means by her ruling is: baseless fears brought to her court by uninjured parties against defendants she philosophically disagrees with will find standing in her court. If she was a baseball umpire her philosophy might be, "I call them as I see them and when I don't see them, I make them up."The only party the National Security Agency's surveillance program actually intends to injure is the enemy. That sounds like a mighty fine program to...
  • A Judicial Misfire [WaPo slams NSA ruling by Taylor]

    08/18/2006 7:44:41 AM PDT · by upchuck · 27 replies · 1,820+ views
    WaPo ^ | Friday, August 18, 2006
    Judge Taylor's opinion is certainly long on throat-clearing sound bites. "There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution," she thunders. She declares that "the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution." And she insists that Mr. Bush has "undisputedly" violated the First and Fourth Amendments, the constitutional separation of powers, and federal surveillance law. But the administration does, in fact, vigorously dispute these conclusions. Nor is its dispute frivolous. The NSA's program, about which many facts are still undisclosed, exists at the nexus of inherent presidential...
  • Bush defends surveillance program

    08/18/2006 1:48:59 PM PDT · by NormsRevenge · 185 replies · 1,785+ views
    AP on Yahoo ^ | 8/18/06 | Deb Reichman - ap
    CAMP DAVID, Md. - President Bush on Friday criticized a federal court ruling that said his warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional, declaring that opponents "do not understand the nature of the world in which we live." "I strongly disagree with that decision, strongly disagree," Bush said, striking his finger on a podium to underscore his point. "That's why I instructed the Justice Department to appeal immediately, and I believe our appeals will be upheld." U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit on Thursday was the first to find the National Security Agency surveillance program unconstitutional. The program involves monitoring...
  • DFU SONG: Oh Donna (Oh Anna Diggs Taylor...hurting our nation one NSA intercept at a time)

    08/18/2006 1:27:19 PM PDT · by doug from upland · 10 replies · 470+ views
    DFU SONGS ^ | 8-2006 | Lyrics, Doug from Upland
    Just in case there is any confusion, the one on the left is Anna Diggs Taylor, and the one on the right is Taylor Hicks. Writing the history of our time in song. MIDI - OH DONNA Anna Diggs Taylor, they shopped and they found you By evil leftists, this country will be screwed In the center of Muzzies...Anna, have you just lost your mind Your freaking mind Brought in by Carter, that worthless POS No need to read that, it was an easy guess In the center of Muzzies...Anna, have you just lost your mind There's no one who's...
  • RUSH LIMBAUGH LIVE THREAD FRIDAY AUGUST 18, 2006

    08/18/2006 8:47:18 AM PDT · by MNJohnnie · 587 replies · 6,615+ views
    A couple of articles why the NSA ruling by the Carter Appointee is so much garbage. http://levin.nationalreview.com/ By Mark Levin Judge Not Are there no limits to which activist judges won’t go to advance their political and policy agendas? Answer: No. I wrote an entire book about it. And U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, appointed in the twilight of the Carter administration, is the latest in a long list of disgraceful lawyers who abuse their power. There are four things that strike me most about Taylor’s opinion. First, she grants standing to such plaintiffs as the ACLU, CAIR, Greenpeace,...
  • Judges, Politics, and Security

    08/18/2006 9:11:37 AM PDT · by PogySailor · 8 replies · 454+ views
    NRO ^ | 8/18/2006 | Andrew C. McCarthy
    It would be wrong and regrettable, but it is certainly conceivable that the Supreme Court will eventually find the Bush administration’s National Security Agency's Terrorist Surveillance Program unconstitutional. One thing is certain, though. Such a ruling by the high Court will not rely on the handiwork of Michigan federal district judge Anna Diggs Taylor. Her effort yesterday to invalidate the program is a transparently political screed. Judge Taylor last garnered national attention in 2002 when she was caught trying to rig the outcome of an affirmative-action case. Now, this relic of the Jimmy Carter twilight has fixed her gaze on...
  • Judge Nixes Warrantless Surveillance

    08/17/2006 9:25:06 AM PDT · by slowhand520 · 28 replies · 1,234+ views
    Judge Nixes Warrantless Surveillance Email this Story Aug 17, 12:10 PM (ET) By SARAH KARUSH DETROIT (AP) - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it. U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy. The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe...
  • Judge Not (NSA ruling-Mark Levin opinion)

    08/17/2006 12:26:38 PM PDT · by hipaatwo · 62 replies · 2,365+ views
    NRO ^ | Mark (The Great One) Levin
    Are there no limits to which activist judges won’t go to advance their political and policy agendas? Answer: No. I wrote an entire book about it. And U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, appointed in the twilight of the Carter administration, is the latest in a long list of disgraceful lawyers who abuse their power. There are four things that strike me most about Taylor’s opinion. First, she grants standing to such plaintiffs as the ACLU, CAIR, Greenpeace, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Christopher Hitchens, and others, without a shred of information showing any connection between the plaintiffs’ assertions...
  • Federal Court Rules that Protecting America is Unconstitional

    08/17/2006 12:38:50 PM PDT · by jbamb · 15 replies · 476+ views
    Part-Time Pundit ^ | 8/17/06 | John Bambenek
    The ACLU has convinced a federal judge that monitoring overseas communications of terrorists is against the constitution. Despite the fact the preamble lists defending the nation as an acceptable federal government function, the ACLU and US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor said that the risk "innocent" communications could be intercepted far outweighed the risk of Al Qaeda attacking the United States. Despite programs such as ECHELON, CARNIVORE, and others that existed happily (albeit controversially) under the Clinton Administration, the possibility that George Bush might actually defend the country is a threat the Constitution cannot bear. Despite the evidence, the media...
  • Carter Judge slams Bush family in Kos-like language in NSA verdict

    08/17/2006 7:44:30 PM PDT · by nwrep · 107 replies · 5,308+ views
    Anti-NSA Verdict - Full Statement ^ | August 17, 2006 | nwrep
    Carter appointee U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor has used the same kind of language that has become popular on left-wing blogs like Daily-Kos to slam the Bush family in the verdict she delivered today, declaring the NSA surveillance of terrorists unconstitutional. In an irrelevant aside, she grabbed at the "King George" phrase thrown around in the left-wing blogosphere to launch a thinly-veiled attack on the President: Our constitution was drafted by founders and ratified by a people who still held in vivid memory the image of King George III and his General Warrants. In an allusion to the President's...
  • Thank you, Judge Diggs - I think (Vanity)

    08/17/2006 8:06:38 PM PDT · by wingsof liberty · 1 replies · 486+ views
    So once again a left wing moonbat has declared the NSA wiretap program that protects our country from terrorism to be unconstitutional. With any luck this will cause a backlash in the November elections against the liberals. After all, the American public overwhelmingly supports the program, not the treasonous ACLU that brought this case forward. But at the same time I am worried that too many Americans might actually accept this decision. Like the constant stream of negative news were fed - "If you hear enough of it and you hear it often, you might start to beleive it." I...
  • A Terrorist Win (Judge's ruling on wiretapping)

    08/17/2006 9:14:44 PM PDT · by FairOpinion · 19 replies · 895+ views
    IBD ^ | Aug. 17, 2006 | IBD
    Judiciary: Detroit Judge Anna Diggs Taylor has agreed to the American Civil Liberties Union's demands to shut down the National Security Agency's wiretapping program. Terrorists everywhere are cheering. The 73-year-old Judge Taylor, appointed by Jimmy Carter in 1979, has a long history as a radical. In 1964, she helped set up a Mississippi office of the National Lawyers Guild, which Congress in 1950 called the "legal bulwark of the Communist Party." What happened Thursday was nothing less than a judicial disarmament of the U.S. — stripping away some of our most valuable weapons in the global war on terror.
  • Zeal can be good, but it's dangerous(Wes Pruden)

    08/18/2006 4:26:08 AM PDT · by Marius3188 · 8 replies · 470+ views
    The Washington Times ^ | 18 Aug 2006 | Wes Pruden
    You don't have to be a Philadelphia lawyer to understand the First Amendment guarantee of free speech is fundamental to everything we are -- and to regard anyone who tries an end run around it as someone who deserves a bracing smackdown. Presidents of both parties are sometimes tempted to try an end run or a shortcut because the Constitution can get in the way of the easiest way to enforce the law. The ruling yesterday by a federal judge in Detroit that the government's wiretapping without a warrant is unconstitutional and must be stopped at once should have been...
  • Carter's Revenge: Times Trumpets Decision Striking Down Terrorist Surveillance

    08/18/2006 4:53:19 AM PDT · by governsleastgovernsbest · 67 replies · 1,264+ views
    New York Times/NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein
    by Mark Finkelstein August 18, 2006 - 07:42 If not quite from the grave, the decision by one of Jimmy Carter's judicial appointees, striking down the NSA terrorist surveillance program, was an unwelcome blast from past. Call it Carter's Revenge. Malaise Redux. The spirit of Desert One lives. That this was a political decision more than a legal one is evidenced by the intemperate language of the decision itself: "“There are no hereditary kings in America," harumphed Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the United States District Court in Detroit, in a case filed by the ACLU. Naturally, the NY Times...
  • Amateur Hour? A judge’s first-year failing-grade opinion.

    08/18/2006 4:59:24 AM PDT · by MNJohnnie · 22 replies · 1,285+ views
    National Review On Line ^ | 08-18-06 | By Bryan Cunningham
    The Honorable Anna Diggs-Taylor probably means well. The lone judge in American history to order a president to halt in wartime a foreign-intelligence-collection program that has undoubtedly saved lives probably sympathizes with the journalists, and others, who are suing to stop the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) in which NSA intercepts foreign-U.S. terrorist communications. She probably feels in her heart the program is wrong, and undoubtedly hears the footsteps of the federal judicial panel moving towards taking this case away from her and consolidating it with others. We can sympathize with her motives, and even share some of her gut feelings...
  • President Taylor

    08/18/2006 6:20:04 AM PDT · by Brilliant · 23 replies · 914+ views
    WSJ ^ | August 18, 2006 | WSJ
    In our current era of polarized politics, it was probably inevitable that some judge somewhere would strike down the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretaps as unconstitutional. The temptations to be hailed as Civil Libertarian of the Year are just too great. So we suppose a kind of congratulations are due to federal Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who won her 10 minutes of fame yesterday for declaring that President Bush had taken upon himself "the inherent power to violate not only the laws of the Congress but the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, itself." Oh, and by the way,...
  • Who's afraid of Anna Diggs Taylor

    08/18/2006 6:53:43 AM PDT · by yoe · 61 replies · 3,898+ views
    Power Line ^ | August 18, 2006 | Scott Johnson
    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...
  • Judge Nixes NSA Wire Taps

    08/17/2006 10:52:46 AM PDT · by Tzimisce · 26 replies · 1,766+ views
    DETROIT Aug 17, 2006 (AP)— A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it. U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. "Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution," Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion. The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit...