Why are newspapers and reporters minimizing Judge Taylor's decision?

[kentuck]

Or downright ridiculing it? C-SPAN has a reporter on right now that says once she read it, she saw how deficient it was, for example, in its 4th Amendment ruling. She doesn't explain exactly where it is deficient - only that it was deficient? Major newspapers, such as the Washington Post, are also criticizing the ruling. Why? If they had been doing their jobs, it may not have gotten to this point in history.

[spanone]

1. Bushco has a full court press in the public relations department

[ChairmanAgnostic]

4. exactly. If they lose this one, the whole house of cads and cards

collapses.

[Joe Bacon]

32. More proof that the Republicans control the press

See how the Screw York Times is now leading the charge against Lamont. The Whoreshington Post is Pravda on the Potomac, the Chicago Fibume is a 24/7 GOP propaganda machine and they now own the Lies Angeles Times. And when it comes to the South, the garbage that comes out of the Atlanta KKKonstitution is just amazing.

[Demeter]

2. Who Are You Going To Believe?

One old black woman and distinguished jurist Harvard class of 57, appointed by Carter, or the lying media? It's as simple as that.

[screembloodymurder]

15. Yup.

That's their point.

[thepurpose]

3. I just posted about her. I'm watching it too and seems like she is

intentionally misleading everyone. She keeps saying all the people she has talked to about it without naming them. In this case why would a legal scholar not want his or her name on the record as opposing or for a ruling by a district court. She hasn't laid out any actual positions that really mean anything and at the same time she is claiming the district court judges ruling doesn't mean what it does.

[babylonsister]

6. Delete; saw your thread. nt

[thepurpose]

8. I have no idea. She works for the Baltimore Sun and use to work for the

National Review. She comes across at first like she is very intelligent but, the longer she talks you begin to understand she has an agenda and its not informing the American public.

[babylonsister]

10. Thanks for clarifying. nt

[librechik]

5. they know their end is near--still trying to cheat for the man

but read Glenn Greenwald at his blog Unclaimed Territory for superior analysis if the shortcomings.

[ThomWV]

7. When They Can't Trivialize the Demonize The Judiciary

Look as far as the new Republicans are concerned only the Executive counts. The Congress is to be sent to Washington solely for the purpose of supporting the President. Judges are the enemy. Pesky bastards at best, writers of liberal law in general, and proponents of the liberal mindset to a man. The judges are to be trivialized to the extent possible and when they can not be hushed into silence they are to be demonized.

I am sick of it.

[Parisle]

9. It Doesn't End With Taylor

----This case will go to the Supreme Court,.. where, for reasons well-known, Bush expects things to go his way. Now is the time for legal and constitutional scholars to jump in and help underpin any areas of the decision which may have been a little "light" on explanation. The MSM is being guided by its corporate owners.

[babylonsister]

11. The scholars and lawyers are chiming in thankfully. I expect we'll

hear lots more in the days to come. And welcome to DU, Parisle!

[flyarm]

23. REMEMBER THE PLAINTIFFS IN THIS CASE ARE LAWYERS!

and some journalists!
the court is going to have to be dang careful!!

fly

[abluelady]

12. Because Nixon, I mean Bush, Should be in Jail

How can our right wing media come out and say that?

[madrchsod]

13. who the hell knows! the guy is at 36%

and they are so afraid to upset him. gutless cowards is the only reason i can think of.

[Golden Raisin]

14. The Constitution is not as important

as JonBenet. Rove/Murdoch, etal. have probably given orders to their media shocktroops to get this story killed, ridiculed and minimalized. Can't have anyone or anything interfering with the divine rights of our Emperor George W. Bush to do exactly as he wishes, with no legal constraints.

[sgxnk]

16. even many

law professors who agree THAT the bushco program is unconstitutional AGREE also that it was a poorly framed decision

that is a basis of process analysis, which is essential in rule of law.

it is not results based. it is process based. iow, it is not just that one agrees with the decision, or the effect the decision will have, but that what is important is the PROCESS for it to be valid under rule of law

from what little i have read, the decision does sound like it uses circular logic, and such.

an honest analysis of any legal decision has to put aside one's personal belief about what the decision SHOULD be, and focus on how the decision was arrived at

that is also why sometimes judges will agree on a decision itself, but disagree on the logic another judge used to arrive at their decision. they will come down with concurring decisions, but with different justifications

most people (on both sides of the issue) kneejerked based on what the decision WAS vs. a true process analysis. now that people have had time to review the actual decision - the content of it, there is talk from many legal analysts (even many who do think the bushco program is unconstitutional), that this was not a well formed opinion

the WA post came out right away fwiw, and saw the problems with the decision. others, like the NYT were late to the party but are now similarly unimpressed

[seabeyond]

18. interesting points. thank you i appreciate.

so....when a judge writes up a decision not so well and goes to appeal, you say judges agree with decision but not the way the judge arrived at decision they write there own. is this a consistant practice in appeal. acceptable.

saying because judges dont like the way a judge arrived at decision doesnt mean they necessarily rule for the person dismissing earlier ruling.

[sgxnk]

19. basically, yes and thank you

when you read scotus and other opinions, you will sometimes see concurring statements from different judges. similar with dissents

iow, let's say the issue is - (absurd example) Is the law that prohibits nun-flagellation in Oklahoma constitutional?

supreme court says no.

3 judges come out with a decision that says it's unconstitutional because (absurd example) it's protected by the first amendment as free expression. another judge comes out with a concurring result (that it's constitutional) but says that it's constitutional based on the Xth amendment.

or whatever

but yes, your last sentence sums it up.

frankly, i can think of several cases where i agreed with the results of a supreme or appelate court decisions EFFECT, but not the logic used to get there, and thus it was a bad decision and should be overturned even. even though i like the effect

there are basically 4 options

1) the decision was well formed and came to the correct conclusion
2) the decision was poorly formed but came to the correct conclusion (iow, it should be the same RESULT, but not by the same logic)
3) the decision was poorly formed and came to the wrong conclusion

i don't think the 4th part of the matrix ever applies much - the decision was well formed, but came to the wrong conclusion. that's kind of hard to do

[flyarm]

28. thank you for clarifying!! n/t

[msongs]

20. proof? links? supporting name and facts?????????

what are the names of the "many law professors who agree THAT the buscho program is unconstitutional..."

more innuendo

who are the "most people (on both sides of the issue)kneejerked..." why not give us their names?

blather

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[sgxnk]

24. here's the examples you asked for

law professors who agree the bushco program is unconstitional as you asked for...
(a nonexhaustive list obviously)
Beth Nolan, Curtis Bradley, David Cole, Geoffrey Stone, Harold Hongju Koh, Kathleen M. Sullivan, Laurence H. Tribe, Martin Lederman, Philip B. Heymann, Richard Epstein, Ronald Dworkin, Walter Dellinger, William S. Sessions, William Van Alstyne


as for the kneejerkers, look no further than here and freerepub

in the former site, most people instantly applauded the decision without actually READING it

similarly in freerepublic, most criticized it without reading it

[flyarm]

26. i have only seen the "poorly framed" by riech wing law people

i have been reading just the opposite..where have you seen that it is poorly framed???

check out what Jonathon Turley has to say...he is a constitutional expert from the Univ Of George Washington Law School...

http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/08/17/jonathon-turley-discusses-todays-ruling/

Turley: "Every time a judge rules against the administration they are either too Democratic or too tall or too short or Pisces. All this spin - this effort to personalize it is doing a great injustice to our system. The problem is not the judge. The problem is a lack of authority. When Gonzales says ‘I got something back in my safe and if you could see it you would all agree with me’. Well, unless there’s a federal statute back in his safe, then it’s not going to make a difference."

Turley gives us a good explanation of what today’s ruling means. The main thing to come out today is that Bush does not have this widespread Constitutional authority that he claims to be granted by the War Powers.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[sgxnk]

30. i provide cites

yale law professor jack balkin an OPPONENT of bush's NSA program says

"Although the court reaches the right result-- that the program is illegal, much of the opinion is disappointing, and I would even suggest, a bit confused."
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/08/federal-court-strikes-down-nsa.html

"It is quite clear that the government will appeal this opinion, and because the court's opinion, quite frankly, has so many holes in it, it is also clear to me that the plaintiffs will have to relitigate the entire matter before the circuit court, and possibly the Supreme Court. The reasons that the court below has given are just not good enough."

even the frigging Wash. post which has been critical of Buscho's NSA program wrote an excellent article vis a vis the structural problems with the decision

is the NYT a "reich wing" source?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/19/washington/19ruling.html?hp&ex=1156046400&en=d97e6a4d75381841&ei=5094&partner=homepage

washignton post?

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

[flyarm]

33. YES YOU POSTED AFTER I HAD ALREADY POSTED

THANK YOU..BUT AS FOR NYT..since they were the mouth piece for us going to war based on lies..and lied over and over about the 9/11 real facts..i would yes consider them reich wing..i do not believe a damn thing they say!! and please do not even get me started on the WP...
i have gone to Harvard Review and seen nothing yet about this ruling being in question.

fly

[sgxnk]

38. fair enuf

while i agree that the NYT was (to put it mildly) not critical enuf of the war rationale etc. and did not fact check enuf,. i think the contention that the NYT is 'reich wing' to be patently absurd

but we can agree to disagree on that.

regardless, i think many of those on all levels of the political continuum think the NYT has fallen in regards to their status as the "paper of record"

cheers

[flyarm]

27. just not what i am reading from Law professors and law shool scolars

refering to your statement :
"law professors who agree THAT the bushco program is unconstitutional AGREE also that it was a poorly framed decision"

not what i am finding at all...fly

http://public.findlaw.com/pnews/news/ap/o/632/08-18-2006/44ce005c36f772c3.html

snip:

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, is championing a compromise that would allow Bush to submit the surveillance program to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for a one-time test of its constitutionality. But under Thursday's ruling congressional approval would not be enough, said Richard Pildes, a professor at New York University School of Law.

Taylor suggests in her ruling that the program "would violate the Constitution even if Congress authorized it," Pildes said. "Until Congress actually addresses these questions, I would expect most appellate courts to be extremely reluctant to address many of the questions this judge was willing to weigh in on."

[sgxnk]

31. ok. here's cites

yale law professor jack balkin an OPPONENT of bush's NSA program says

"Although the court reaches the right result-- that the program is illegal, much of the opinion is disappointing, and I would even suggest, a bit confused."
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/08/federal-court-strikes-down-nsa.html

"It is quite clear that the government will appeal this opinion, and because the court's opinion, quite frankly, has so many holes in it, it is also clear to me that the plaintiffs will have to relitigate the entire matter before the circuit court, and possibly the Supreme Court. The reasons that the court below has given are just not good enough."

even the frigging Wash. post which has been critical of Buscho's NSA program wrote an excellent article vis a vis the structural problems with the decision

is the NYT a "reich wing" source?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/19/washington/19ruling.html?hp&ex=1156046400&en=d97e6a4d75381841&ei=5094&partner=homepage

washignton post?

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

[flyarm]

34. YA KNOW..ITS ABOUT THE RULE OF LAW... its about

the constitution and it is about the rule of law!!

it's about this:

Constitution: Art. II- The President http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.ar...



....
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."


it's not about pundits and what they say or what they think..its about the "RULE OF LAW"

THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON THE RULE OF LAW..EVERYTHING ELSE IS BULLSHIT!

FLY

[flyarm]

35. OH AND ON RANDI RHODES YESTERDAY SOMEONE MADE THE POINT

( HARTMAN WAS HER REPLACEMENT) that the AG wasn't supposed to be the one to file the appeal..so does anything coming out of the freaking propaganda media say mean a damn thing? ( SORRY I CAUGHT IT LATE IN WHO HE SAID HAD TO FILE THE APPEAL..BUT NOT THE AG)

jon benet jon benet jon benet...fuck no!

fly

[sgxnk]

39. non-responsiveness

to the substance of the discussion noted

the issue was not (that i posited) whether or not bushco's NSA program was a violation of the constitution....

the issue was whether the 6th decision by this judge was structurally poor, disjointed and/or legally sound in addressing the unconstitutionality. that is, part of rule of law. that judges render decisions based on... the law.

i provided cites ie evidence, to support the claim that there is rather broad support EVEN AMONG those who oppose the NSA program and/or think it's unconstitutional, that this decision was very poor

iow, it is entirely consistent to say that bush's NSA program is unconstitutional, and yet say this judge had her head up her okole when she made this decision

you provided jacksquat as to any evidence for a contrary view...

and jack has left town

we're left with...

[flyarm]

17. BUT DON'T WORRY IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH KARL ROVE

AS SOME HERE WOULD CLAIM!!:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

i listened to Glen Greewald on with Sam last night on Air America..

Glen basically said it was a good ruling with only one real weakness in it..

read glen's report here..be sure to read the whole thing scroll down on it..


http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/federal-court-finds-warrantless.html


the rest..the media and newsprint..they are all owned by Rove..he gives them their marching papers!


remember here, some of the plaintiffs are attorneys...claiming they are damaged by not having attorney client priviledge in privacy ...with clients that are in the middle east...

so they can not be real dummy attorney's...

i would think the 6th court of appeals will have to be very careful with this case! since the plaintiffs are attorney's..

and some journalists..are involved as plaintiffs..

and this is not the first case that threw out the state secrets bullshit * used..this is the second case..the first being in San Francisco

so they can spin all they want...

but please if you haven't done so yet..please if you have a few dollars..send the ACLU your dues..or sign up..become a member..

fly

[flyarm]

22. from Glen Greenwald's blog..THANK YOU GLEN

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/federal-court-finds-warrantless.html

Let's resoundingly clear up two widely disseminated misconceptions, the first of which is being quite deliberately tossed around:

(1) Even with this Order, the Bush administration is free to continue to do all the eavesdropping on terrorists they want to do. They just have to do so with approval of the FISA court -- just like all administrations have done since 1978, just as the law requires, and just as they did when eavesdropping as part of the surveillance they undertook on the U.K. terror plot.

(2) The court's ruling that warrantless eavesdropping violates the Fourth and First Amendments clearly means (although the decision is far from a model of clarity) that Congress cannot authorize warrantless eavesdropping with legislation, which would preclude enforcement of the Specter bill.

This is clearest when the court rejects the administration's argument that the AUMF implicitly authorized violations of FISA. The court ruled that: (a) the AUMF cannot be read to amend FISA, but that (b) even if it could be so read, it would not matter, because Congress cannot authorize an unconstitutional program:


The AUMF Resolution, if indeed it is construed as replacing FISA, gives no support to Defendants here. Even if that Resolution superceded all other statutory law, Defendants have violated the constitutional rights of their citizens.

Op. at 39 (emphasis added). If Congress is not empowered to authorize this program through the AUMF (because the program is unconstitutional), then there is no good argument as to why the Specter bill can.

[KoKo]

36. Good read from Greenwald...encouraging! n/t

[elehhhhna]

21. The 2001 Anthrax mailings to media (from Cheney) worked really well.

[flyarm]

25. must read by John Aravosis at Americablog

a must read ..**warning harsh language but excellent!!

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/someone-give-george-bush-god-damn.html

Someone give George Bush a God damn fucking civics lesson

[flyarm]

29. here is the full pdf ruling ..

http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/nsa/aclunsa81706opn.pdf

[otohara]

37. From The Right Wing Rocky Mt. News

Wiretap decision goes over the top

t's unfortunate that the first federal judicial ruling on the Bush administration's "terrorist surveillance" program ended up a political statement, rather than a dispassionate legal analysis of the policy.

That's because the ruling issued Thursday in Detroit by U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, which found that warrantless wiretaps are unconstitutional, is likely to be slapped down on appeal. And that's true despite there being good reasons to question the program's legality. Many scholars who agree with her conclusion also think the 43-page decision will not stand.

Taylor's opinion was quickly stayed by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, so the surveillance program is still in business until the appeal is heard Sept. 7. And now the program will almost certainly remain in effect until Congress endorses it in legislation, or a more credible legal challenge is posed.

Taylor employs plenty of florid rhetoric in the opinion, comparing President Bush with King George III and at times saying "obviously" and "undisputedly" the wiretap program violates the Constitution. But her arguments show a profound misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights, so it's unlikely to persuade appellate judges. And the main constitutional question remains whether these wiretaps are considered unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment. http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/editorials/article/0,2777,DRMN_23964_4928086,00.html

When Saturday comes rolling around we in Denver get the Rocky Mt. News vs The Post (I'm a Post subscriber) Both papers suck, but The Rocky sucks more.

[KansDem]

40. Really?

C-SPAN has a reporter on right now that says once she read it, she saw how deficient it was, for example, in its 4th Amendment ruling.

When did "professional journalists" become so savvy on the Constitution? It's too bad she didn't elaborate but maybe like Katie "we'll get back to you later" Couric's lie about Democrats taking money from Abramoff, this "reporter" will do the same. Just a matter of "when."

If they had been doing their jobs, it may not have gotten to this point in history.

I'm in full agreement on this!!!

[Uncle Joe]

41. Kicked and recommended for your initial question, however

I believe your last sentence answered it.

:kick: