A Judicial Misfire

[acmejack]

The first federal court opinion on warrantless NSA surveillance is full of sound and fury.

THE NATION would benefit from a serious, scholarly and hard-hitting judicial examination of the National Security Agency's program of warrantless surveillance. The program exists on ever-more uncertain legal ground; it is at least in considerable tension with federal law and the Bill of Rights. Careful judicial scrutiny could serve both to hold the administration accountable and to provide firmer legal footing for such surveillance as may be necessary for national security.

Unfortunately, the decision yesterday by a federal district court in Detroit, striking down the NSA's program, is neither careful nor scholarly, and it is hard-hitting only in the sense that a bludgeon is hard-hitting. The angry rhetoric of U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor will no doubt grab headlines. But as a piece of judicial work -- that is, as a guide to what the law requires and how it either restrains or permits the NSA's program -- her opinion will not be helpful.
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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/17/AR2006081701540.html

[acmejack]

1. The liberal Wapo

Right

[Jim Sagle]

2. Sure, Wapo is liberal - they're "even the liberal".

As in "even the liberal Wapo" sucks Republcian dick.

[acmavm]

3. Not scholarly? Maybe she didn't cite enought cases where

this has come up before? Ooops, I guess that's 'cuz you CAN'T.

Frigging idiots, all she did was cite the obvious and state the TRUTH. Something the WP and the NYT haven't done since before the 2000 elections. Once in a while the NYT will print a story that makes the bush** admin look 'bad', but never 'too bad'. Can't have that since they far more likely to cover for 'em than tell the truth about 'em.

[Xipe Totec]

4. They didn't even have the balls to sign the editorial

that speaks volumes.

[EST]

5. Absolute patent bullshit!

Idiot obviously did not read the opinion and ruling, including the numerous cites. The judge ruled very narrowly and thoroughly and, absent some technical maneuver on the part of the slime administration to obfuscate, is clearly unassailable.

She built her argument and conclusions the same way I learned to design a debate strategy, like a pyramid, with a broad base growing into a clean, tight and narrow point in conclusion. I am impressed.

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

6. Gee, I wonder which one of these two people wrote that??

KKKarl or Gonzo???

Either one of these two "richardheads" are so predictable. :puke: :puke: