Voice of sanity amidst the lunacy of the Bush Administration!!!

[Calabrio]

This judge did not elect herself president. She did her job of ruling on the case. That's what judges are there for.

Have you been following this story at all?

First of all, it's arguable she should have even seen the case. Those that brought it before her didn't really have legal standing to do so.

Second, her argument supporting her decision was paper thin and inadequate. It was a pathetic piece of legal work. It assumes its conclusion, essentially framing the issue as whether the president can break the law. According to her, the NSA eavesdropping program is "obviously in violation of the Fourth Amendment." It's not.

It will be appealed and the decision will ultimately be overturned.

Here's what the Washington Post said about her decision:

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....

Third, she's a political activist.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/200608...udge_has_possible_conflict_of_interest116_xml
The judge serves as a secretary and trustee for a foundation that donated to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan, a plaintiff in the case ACLU et al. v. National Security Agency.

According to her 2003 and 2004 financial disclosure statements, Judge Diggs Taylor served as secretary and trustee for the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan (CFSEM). She was re-elected to this position in June 2005. The official CFSEM website states that the foundation made a "recent grant" of $45,000 over two years to the ACLU of Michigan, a plaintiff in the wiretapping case. Judge Diggs Taylor sided with the ACLU of Michigan in her recent decision.

According to the CFSEM website, "The Foundation's trustees make all funding decisions at meetings held on a quarterly basis."

"This potential conflict of interest merits serious investigation," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "If Judge Diggs Taylor failed to disclose this link to a plaintiff in a case before her court, it would certainly call into question her judgment."

Judge Diggs Taylor is also the presiding judge in another case where she may have a conflict of interest. The Arab Community Center for Social and Economic Services (ACCESS) is a defendant in another case now before Judge Diggs Taylor's court (Case No. 06-10968 (Mich. E.D.)). In 2003, the CFSEM donated $180,000 to ACCESS.

------

If you want the president to be able to spy on whoever, whenever, for whatever reason, you're living in the wrong country. The system has thusfar worked as intended, with the judge ruling that the NSA program was unconstitutional.

First of all, the President can't and IS NOT spying on "whoever, whenever for whatever reason." So you're wrong on that count. There's nothing to debate on this point because your statement is flat-out incorrect.

Second, the system does work and this program works within that very system. This decision was not the work of a scholarly jurist, but a political activist in a black robe. Her paper supporting her decision was so bad that it been said it wouldn't have been accepted had it been turned in by a second year law student. It will soon be overturned.

 

[97silverlsc]

Fossten's and Calabrio's arguments are aptly dissected and dismissed here:http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/

 

[Calabrio]

That'd be fine if Althouse was the only voice criticizing it.
She's not. She's in the majority, mind you.

And the opinion piece/blog you link to didn't address ANY of the arguments, other than saying Althouse didnt know what she was talking about.

By the way, did any of us actually mention her?

 

[Frogman]

Who was it that said "National Security means National Control"?

Yeah, I could google it, i guess.

 

[fossten]

Freedom doesn't just mean privacy. It also means freedom from terrorism.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[97silverlsc]

That'd be fine if Althouse was the only voice criticizing it.
She's not. She's in the majority, mind you.

And the opinion piece/blog you link to didn't address ANY of the arguments, other than saying Althouse didnt know what she was talking about.

By the way, did any of us actually mention her?

Read further down on the page.