jillian
Princess
Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to happen with these judges who twist the law to support their political beliefs.
RAFLMAO! And that doesn't happen with Republican appointees.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to happen with these judges who twist the law to support their political beliefs.
RAFLMAO! And that doesn't happen with Republican appointees.
IF the program is everything the administration and NSA is saying it is, I see no grounds for this judges ruling to begin with. But then, that goes back to common sense and/or the lack thereof.
Great, give some examples, please.
Why would you assume the program is what the administration says it is?
Why would I assume it is not?
Interesting...you see no grounds for the judge's ruling? That's why cases go to Justices and not to voters.
GMAFB. I see no gorunds for the judge's ruling because it defies logic and common sense, and this judge should be kicked out of the court for being an idiot and using her position to force her political views through the back door what the legislature refused to do through the front.
Now why not try reading the actual decision.
I did. BEFORE I posted my opinion. The judge is wrong, period.
http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/eGov/taylorpdf/06 10204.pdf
BTW, Avatar, there's no judicial misconduct and you haven't linked any proof of your assertion, credible or otherwise. But you want to talk about judicial misconduct? Tell me... what do you think of a judge who sits on a case that impacts one of his hunting buddies?
Ummmmmmmm....you can start with Bush v Gore for a start.
Oh, you mean the one where Gore lost by an even bigger margin after the recount?
Or should we include the part where Gore was willing to allow late votes from known Dem stronghold counties in FL; yet, protested bigtime about late military mail-in votes?
Or how about just the fact in general Gore tired to do the typical liberal thing and have the judiciary step in and make the save with a partisan ruling?
Ummmmmmmm....you can start with Bush v Gore for a start.
Why would you assume the program is what the administration says it is?
Interesting...you see no grounds for the judge's ruling? That's why cases go to Justices and not to voters.
Now why not try reading the actual decision.
http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/eGov/taylorpdf/06 10204.pdf
BTW, Avatar, there's no judicial misconduct and you haven't linked any proof of your assertion, credible or otherwise. But you want to talk about judicial misconduct? Tell me... what do you think of a judge who sits on a case that impacts one of his hunting buddies?
Why would you assume the program is what the administration says it is?
Interesting...you see no grounds for the judge's ruling? That's why cases go to Justices and not to voters.
Now why not try reading the actual decision.
http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/eGov/taylorpdf/06 10204.pdf
BTW, Avatar, there's no judicial misconduct and you haven't linked any proof of your assertion, credible or otherwise. But you want to talk about judicial misconduct? Tell me... what do you think of a judge who sits on a case that impacts one of his hunting buddies?
...No I don't...But I told ya so. Chimpy McPresident's warrantless domestic spying program violates the 1st and 4th Amendments of the Constitution. It violates the separation of powers as enumerated in the Constitution. It violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
<blockquote>"It was never the intent of the framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly when his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights," she wrote. "The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and balance for one another." - Judge Anna Diggs Taylor</blockquote>
In light of the fact that the British airline bombing plot was foiled by adhering to the four corners of the law, Chimpy and Co's hand in this matter is weaked all the further. And that can only be good for America.
For the story, goto:
<center><a href=http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2006/08/18/america/web.0818nsa.php> Judge finds wiretapping plan violates the law; U.S. appeals</a></center>
For the full text of the decision, goto:
<center><a href=http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/nsa/aclunsa81706opn.pdf>FindLaw</a></center>
Told ya so...
Looks like the ruling has been put on hold pending appeal. At least current surveillance won't be hindered while the issue gets sorted out up the judicial chain.FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 2006
WWW.USDOJ.GOV
AG
(202) 514-2007
TDD (202) 514-1888
Statement from the Department of Justice on Yesterdays Ruling on the Terrorist Surveillance Program
The Terrorist Surveillance Program is a critical tool that ensures we have in place an early warning system to detect and prevent a terrorist attack. In the ongoing conflict with al-Qaeda and its allies, the President has the primary duty under the Constitution to protect the American people. The Constitution gives the President the full authority necessary to carry out that solemn duty, and we believe the program is lawful and protects civil liberties. Because the Terrorist Surveillance Program is an essential tool for the intelligence community in the War on Terror, the Department of Justice has appealed the District Court's order. The parties have also agreed to a stay of the injunction until the District Court can hear the Department's motion for a stay pending appeal.
###
06-550
Doesn't that just sound like something that would come out of Jimmy Carter's Administration? Alas, as you say, the legacy lives on! Let's hope and pray this decision gets overturned by a higher court. We all could be sitting ducks otherwise.