We were aware that the ACLU was court-shopping this case to find the right judge. Looks like they found one.
Key points:
"....she manages to forget or overlook that no one is being denied his liberty and no evidence is being brought in criminal proceedings based on what the NSA might learn through listening to al Qaeda communications. The wiretapping program is an intelligence operation, not a law-enforcement proceeding. Congress was duly informed, and not a single specific domestic abuse of such a wiretap has yet been even alleged, much less found."
"Unlike Judge Taylor, Presidents are accountable to the voters for their war-making decisions, as the current White House occupant has discovered. Judge Taylor can write her opinion and pose for the cameras--and no one can hold her accountable for any Americans who might die as a result".
No question about it.
I love how you constantly quote the WSJ opinion page as if its the fount of all wisdom. It is not. No opinion piece is no matter how badly you would like it to be.
ReplyDeleteTime will bear out the arguments in this case along with the opinions of judges based on the rule of law, the Consitution and FISA. The journal is entitled to its opinion, but in the end, that's all it is, an opinion. The WSJ does not make or enforce the laws, Congress and the Courts do that. It is the President's job to UPHOLD the laws and make sure they are enforced, something this President seems tto forget.
Ha! And of course, that can be the only reason that this opinion was issued. Is it possible that she is actually right? Perhaps not in your world, but in the real world she is more in line with the constitution than the President.
ReplyDelete".....in the real world she is more in line with the constitution than the President."
ReplyDeleteNot according to some (intellectually honest) left wing opinions.
Why don't you two try to provide some facts and documentation to back up your opinions?
There is a good, short evaluation of the opinion on Overlawyered.com
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is that one judge's opinion stops nothing - the NSA's program will continue while the lawyers & courts duke it out.
And, no. I don't think this judge is entirely right.
roger wrote:
ReplyDelete"The WSJ does not make or enforce the laws, Congress and the Courts do that."
Neither does the ACLU.
I think in the end, despite all the other issues raised in the judge's ruling (e.g., First Amendment -- HUH?), it's going to come down to two questions: Does the program comply with the narrow recognized exception to the otherwise ironclad Fourth Amendment requirement for a warrant? And does it comply with FISA?
ReplyDeleteIf the case gets that far, the facts will show that the answers to both questions will be "no."
But standing has been the Achilles heel for plaintiffs in this case all along. I think there's a fair chance that the 6th Circuit or the Supremes could invoke some kind of Catch-22 to deny standing without ever addressing the substantive issue.
I believe that the issue of "standing" will come first. If an appellate court first determines there was no "standing" then the rest is moot. End of case.
ReplyDeleteIt's similar to the "fruits of the poisonous tree" doctrine in search and seizure law. If the initial step was improper, nothing that follows is admissible.
Regardless, it will be grist for much colorful discussion in the foreseeable future!
You know that when the Lefties join in the criticism that the decision is flat out wrong.
ReplyDeleteHere's what WaPo says.
Despite what some, including this judge, fervently believe, the programs are legal and will STAY that way.