What are the odds the Appeals Court will uphold Judge Taylor's ruling?

[kentuck]

Reportedly, this is a very conservative court. The Republicans have put a lot of effort into stacking the appeals courts with conservative judges in recent years. Once they appeal a lower court ruling, they are pretty well assured they can get away with anything. At least, that is what they think.

If this "conservative" court did indeed uphold Judge Taylor's ruling, it would be earth-shaking. I don't think that is an overstatement. The White House would be shitting bricks.

[Gman]

1. I think 50-50

Then at the SCOTUS, the vote WILL be 5-4. Depends on Kennedy and if he finds a conscience.

[H2O Man]

4. Good call.

I do think that a court that is actually "conservative" will uphold the decision. It is really so clear-cut, and both the Constitution and previous case law is, to quote Tricky Dick, "crystal clear" on the issues at hand. The number of radical republicans that are on the federal courts is the potential problem. But I think there is at least a 50-50 chance the administration loses.

[Gman]

6. If the SCOTUS rules for Bush it will mean

the SCOTUS is sanctioning the "unitary executive". I know there are 4 votes there to stop Bush. The question will be does Kennedy agree the president is omnipotent and answers to no one.

[H2O Man]

15. Well said.

I agree 100%.

[peacebaby3]

25. I agree and there was a thread on here just in the last couple of weeks

about a speech Kennedy gave where I think he may go with our solid 4 on this one, IIRC.

I'm too poor to donate now so I lost my star a little while ago and can't search for the thread, but I would love if someone would do a search and find the thread about Kennedy giving a speech and post it here.

[madokie]

2. At this point all we have is hope,

Our way of life and constitution is in the balance

[indepat]

13. Nothing is at stake here except freedom of the press, the 1st Amendment,

the Constitution, liberty, and the Republic itself.

[POAS]

3. Judges protect turf?

If anything will motivate a "conservative" court to uphold this ruling it would be a desire to finally protect the courts from Constitutional irrelevancy. This is becoming as much a turf war as anything else.

[sgxnk]

24. excellent point

imo, the courts, especially the scotus have gone more and more towards justification of statism and increased govt. power at the expense of citizens. that goes hand and hand with the ultimate hubris. "we're the courts and we are important, dammit" (shades of gumby)

both those on the left and the right decry decisions that go against them, but in general, i think the court has taken the stance that govt. can increase its power with even the flimsiest of rationale

kelo, the case involving medical marijuana (states rights overturned), etc. etc etc.

[ThomWV]

5. It Is Such A Clear Violation Of The Constitution They Must Uphold It

I read the opinion last night, it is clear as a bell. Do not believe the MSM description of the opinion as somehow flawed or trivial, it is anything but.

I suggest that everyone read at leas the last few pages of it and if you read nothing else read the very last paragraph.

In commenting on her opnion the Judge gives us the words of Justice Warren:

"Implicit in the term "National Defense" is the notion of defending those values and ideas which set the nation apart ... 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 worth while"

[me b zola]

30. That's a great quote...sums up this historical period of time

I found it ironic that when msnbc had a poll asking it's readers if they agreed with the ruling, nowhere on their site did they link to the decision. I wrote to them asking them to provide a link for their readers--but I suspect their objective is not to actually inform readers, so they declined to respond to my request.

[patricia92243]

7. I think it is very likely they will uphold it - because it will be present

presented as it really is. Wiretapping is not trying to be stopped - at all. The problem is getting a warrant either before or after the fact. The courts will rule on the actual situation -not what is being said by Republicans.

Just like they did, and continue to do with Iraq, they present the situation in a certain way without actually saying it - RE: 9/11 and Iraq have something to do with other. I - almost - understand their pretending on this - they WANTED to go to war so made up some "facts" for it.

I don't understand the need to mis-represent the wiretapping situation - since they know they really are able to get legal wiretaps anytime they are needed = it ONLY takes the rather simple act of getting a warrant.

The only reason that I can think of is - because it has already happened - they are trying to cover it up to protect Bush.

Or, is there any chance that Bush really does not understand that the agencies CAN wiretap as long as they have a warrant. He is stupid and doesn't understand what is going on. It is hard to believe that anybody would go as far as they have just to cover up Bush's ignorance of affairs.

[seabeyond]

18. i think what they are working hard to cover up is who they tapped

i think they tap regular people and opponents which is what really got nixon in trouble and there has not been an investigation into who bush tapped that is the hidden. we are acting like he is only tapping terrorists and i dont think that is the extent of this program

[patricia92243]

20. I'm such a dummy sometimes that I embarrass myself. Of course that is the

exact answer. Thanks for pointing it out to me. I honestly never thought of that. :( If I didn't think of it, and I am suspicious, I can see how the poor ol' trusting Republicans fall for it hook, line, and sinker.

[seabeyond]

21. this is where i am looking at situation and not hearing anyone saying it

everyone is talking about is it ok for bush to do this with terrorists. personally i dont give a shit what he is doing with terrorist..... though i do care about torturing, ergo we have to follow laws in all things, so i guess i care. i digress. my point is i am only hearing as if he taps terrorist and honor in his dishonesty. i dont believe it for a moment. this is why we need a court to oversight bush. he wont be just on the terrorists ass... they will and i am sure have abused this. actually we know they have, we just pretend it isnt out in the open like so many things with this administration

[never_get_over_it]

28. That is exactly correct

whomever they are tapping it has to be outrageous - it is SO EASY to get a FISA warrant - there have been thousands of requests and only about 5 denials. Whatever they were/are doing it was SO outrageous that FISA wouldn't have let them do it. There is no other reason they wouldn't just go by the FISA law. They were spying on all of us - and I'm sure most definitely their political "opponents"

I'm pretty sure the appeals will uphold the decision - self preservation at the least - and it is SO clearly a violation of the 4th amendment - I also think Kennedy will vote to uphold the decision and maybe even Scalia - Thomas - Alito and Roberts I'm pretty sure will not vote to uphold

Just my guess....

[seabeyond]

29. didnt roberts recently have a surprising ruling

i am not going to put roberts in the thomas alito camp just yet

[never_get_over_it]

32. Not sure are you referring to Hamdan case?

if so Roberts abstained from that one but Kennedy joined Ginsburg, Souter, Stephens and Breyer. Roberts had to abstain because the case came to him previously before he moved to SCOTUS.

[mvd]

33. So far, that's about the only thing that's separated Roberts from..

Scalia. They've both been hard conservatives - Roberts has just been a bit more nuanced in his opinions. I don't think we could have stopped them both - but giving them Roberts meant we had a good case on Alito to bring to the people.

If this ruling leads to the Supreme Court, Kennedy will be the deciding factor IMO unless Roberts surprises me. Kennedy was there for the pResident in 2000, so I don't trust him here on something so personal to the pResident.

[seabeyond]

35. i thought i saw last week or two where he opposed bushcos in

something. but perused and cant recall. sorry

[alfredo]

22. Here's what we need to do:

We need to start asking if bush is using these warrant less wiretaps to spy on his critics and the Democratic party? Why else would he be keeping them secret from the courts? The FISA courts are not known for leaking.


Remember one of the Articles of Impeachment against Nixon was for illegal wiretapping of political opponents.

The Democratic party needs to tighten up it security now. Everything transmitted should have strong encryption. If it can be hand carried, it should be.

[kentuck]

26. Agree...

Yes, plant the seed now. Because that is going to come out later. Bet on it.

[alfredo]

27. Just asking the question is as

important as the answer.

[Disturbed]

39. "any chance that Bush really does not understand ?"

None.

“Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.”

President Bush -- April 20, 2004

Busholini understood but allowed NSA to violate the FISA Law 32 times. If America was truely a democracy Busholini would have been Impeached already.

[Waya]

8. Slim to none?

[soothsayer]

9. what are the chances they'll stop wiretapping even if ordered to

do so?

It's a 'secret program' so we'll have no idea if they're doing it or not.

[zanne]

10. They're ignoring the Supreme Court ruling on Guantanamo...

They disagree with the court and they're finding ways around complying with the ruling. I have absolutely no confidence that the decision of any court will matter to these people.

[Demeter]

12. Fuel for the Treason Trials

the Bushbots don't really understand the first rule of holes: When you find yourself in a hole, STOP DIGGING! We won't need any gravediggers at this rate, just a bulldozer to fill in the pit.

[spanone]

11. This should be so beyond politics. This is the fabric of America itself.

[Solo_in_MD]

14. Uphold it, as will SCOTUS. The decision is correct but poorly written

[Kickoutthejams23]

23. Two rulings in one

I think they will split the baby. They will probably uphold the ruling claiming the lack of Congressional authority for the program. But the unconstitutional ruling was a bit more of a stretch to begin with and the ruling is so poorly written it is as if the judge expected it not to fly and just wanted to vent on the record. (Or perhaps show of her creative writing skills.)

[madrchsod]

16. it will be upheld by the supremes

the ruling is based on a firm foundation. she ruled the program was valid,it was that no one could violate the "rules" it`s really a no brainier and of course that`s why bush is politicizing the ruling. that is a very very bad idea.

[NEDem]

17. If it were a traditional "conservative" court, I'd say 100%

Problem is that the word "conservative" means "Fascist" in today's world, so I have to say I doubt the fascists would uphold it.

[BootinUp]

19. Probably not that good, (as you suggest)

but the conservative advantage in politics cannot last forever. I am very heartened by Taylor's descision and even by the fact that many legal blogs say she reached correct decision even though they question some parts of her opinion.

And then judges are not always so predictable. They may uphold the decision based on a different analysis of the law.

[mvd]

31. Maybe 30-70 against?

I think the Bush appointees are likely to parrot him on the "war on terror." Civil liberties will probably enter their minds, but I don't think they'll do the right thing in the end. Still, the ruling is significant, and is the first ruling to say what we knew all along: that Bush has violated his oath of office!

[insanerepubs]

34. It could be

That are missing a bigger issue here. I think that we will see the decision overturned on the basis of "standing".If memory serves the ACLU brought the suit(someone correct me if I am wrong)If this is true the higher court may overturn the decision based on standing.The suit would have needed to be filed by someone who had been harmed by the wiretapping.

The catch 22 here is that if anyone has been tapped they cannot report it or talk about it, if they even knew about it.If they do they are in violation of the law and can be prosecuted.

[mulsh]

36. the judge thoroughly addresses standing

The defendants will probably try to base their appeal on some aspect of standing but I'll be that gets shot down quickly.

She devotes quite a lot of this decission to establish standing.

The judge addresses the ACLU's standing but also addresses the individual plaintiff's standing and how the government's actions "chilled" their first and fourth ammendment rights.
She also allowed a motion filed by the defendants due to state security.

you've brought up an important aspect and like I said above I'm pretty sure the government will try to appeal on that issue.

oh yea and welcome to DU

[mvd]

38. That's good news

It wouldn't be fair to have standing play into it.

[havocmom]

37. How many more Supremes ready to retire?

They will hold off long as possible to give the puppet boy some clout with all the Supreme Wanna Bees