Carter Appointed Judge Strikes Down NSA Program - Merged w/ I hate to say It

[jillian]

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.

 

[Annie]

RAFLMAO! And that doesn't happen with Republican appointees.

Great, give some examples, please.

 

[jillian]

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.

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?

 

[jillian]

Great, give some examples, please.

Ummmmmmmm....you can start with Bush v Gore for a start.

 

[Gunny]

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?

Deflection.

 

[Gunny]

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?

 

[jillian]

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?

Nah...nothing political about the decision... nope...nothing to see here. :gang1:

Now about the slime who refused to recuse himself from his hunting buddy's case...... I'm still waiting.

Oh yeah...you have no answer for that one cause he's one of your boys.

 

[Annie]

Ummmmmmmm....you can start with Bush v Gore for a start.

LOL go look at USA Today and NY Times and WaPo recounts. :baby:

So how about some appointees and their political biases shining through?

 

[PsuedoGhost]

No one has bothered to explain why the government cannot obtain warrants to tap the lines of those that it wants to tap?

Not a single person, liberal or republican has been able to answer that one. Bu ... Bu... But its all for the war on terrorism. OUR SECURITY IS BEING COMPROMISED...

Lame.

Warrants exist for a reason. They are monitoring CITIZENS with this program. Why can they not get warrants?

 

[red states rule]

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?

Her legal reasoning was thin to say the leaset, and many experts agreee. She is a liberal Judge who predetermined the outcome of the case before she heard the arguments




Networks Ignore Weaknesses in NSA Surveillance Ruling by Liberal Judge
Posted by Brad Wilmouth on August 17, 2006 - 23:39.
On Thursday, all three network evening newscasts covered the ruling by a federal judge against the Bush administration's controversial NSA spying program that involves warrantless monitoring of international phone calls when one participant is a terrorist suspect. Stemming from a case filed by the ACLU and other plaintiffs, Judge Ann Diggs Taylor, a Carter appointee, found the program to be unconstitutional. Unlike CNN and FNC, which conveyed that the ruling would likely be overturned, none of the network evening newscasts mentioned the liberal credentials of Judge Taylor or the debate over judicial activism and legal weaknesses in the ruling, such as the issue of whether the plaintiffs had standing to file the lawsuit, since the plaintiffs themselves were not found to be the subjects of surveillance. (Transcripts follow)

On ABC's World News with Charles Gibson, Gibson inroduced the story of the "major legal defeat" for the Bush administration, and correspondent Martha Raddatz filed a full report on the ruling in which she described the ruling as a "significant blow" to the administration, showing a sound bite of plaintiff James Bamford arguing that the ruling means the President "isn't a king." While she did at least provide some balance by relaying that "many national security experts" argue the program is essential, followed by a supporting sound bite of James Garafano of the Heritage Foundation, Raddatz did not delve into any legal weaknesses of the ruling itself.

The CBS Evening News and the NBC Nightly News only ran anchor-read stories, during which CBS's Bob Schieffer, uniquely among the networks, pointed out that those subjected to surveillance were "suspected of having ties to terrorists." And while ABC's Gibson did at least mention that the surveillance involved "overseas phone calls from this country," NBC's Campbell Brown did not even mention the international nature of the calls, while the words "Domestic Surveillance" displayed on the screen next to her. Brown relayed that Judge Taylor "harshly condemned" the program.

By contrast, as documented by the MRC's Megan McCormack, on CNN's The Situation Room, legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin conveyed that "this was a very liberal judge" who "almost exclusively cites other liberal judges." Toobin informed viewers that the case was likely to be overturned as he was "certain that other courts will see this differently."

On FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume, correspondent Bret Baier mentioned that Judge Taylor was a Carter appointee, and the show also gave attention to the debate over whether the plaintiffs in the case had standing to file their lawsuit. During the Fox All Stars segment, Fortune Magazine's Nina Easton talked about feedback she had received that the "legal reasoning on it was thin," and addressed the issue of standing: "And this question of the standing of these folks you're talking about, the scholars and the journalists and so on, and whether they actually had standing to bring this suit, well, she [Judge Taylor] wrestled with some of those questions, but then she dismissed the other concerns, saying, well, if they don't have standing, then who's going to keep the President, who's going to keep the President, hold his feet to the fire and who's going to let courts come in and hold him accountable? It's like, well, I gotta give him standing, and so I thought that was extremely telling."

Below are complete transcripts of the stories that ran on the August 17 ABC's World News with Charles Gibson, the CBS Evening News, and the NBC Nightly News, along with relevant portions of CNN's The Situation Room and FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume:

From ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:

Charles Gibson, in opening teaser: "Wiretap case: A federal judge tells the Bush administration one of its main terror-fighting tools violates the Constitution."
...

Gibson: "The Bush administration suffered a major legal defeat today. A federal judge declared its surveillance program of overseas phone calls from this country, conducted without warrants, to be unconstitutional. The President has called the program a crucial tool in the war on terror. We turn to ABC's chief White House correspondent, Martha Raddatz."

Martha Raddatz: "The wiretap ruling came with stinging criticism from U.S. District Court Judge Ann Diggs Taylor. 'It was never the intent of the Framers to give the President such unfettered control,' said the judge, 'particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights.' Judge Taylor said the administration's failure to obtain warrants for the eavesdropping program violated both the right to privacy and free speech."

James Bamford, Plaintiff: "What it says is the President of the United States isn't a king. He's just like every other citizen when it comes to a law."

Raddatz: "The White House response to the ruling: 'We couldn't disagree more.' And the Justice Department immediately appealed the decision."

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Justice Department: "We have confidence in the lawfulness of this program, and that's why the appeal has been lodged. This is an important program."

Raddatz: "This is a significant blow to the Bush administration, which has strongly defended the legality and the necessity of the program since its disclosure last December."

George W. Bush: "I believe what I'm doing is constitutional, and I know it's necessary."

Dick Cheney, dated July 10: "I can tell you the terrorist surveillance program has been absolutely essential."

Raddatz: "And there are many national security experts who agree that the program is essential."

James Garafano, Heritage Foundation: "We just saw a plot broken up. People planned to kill thousands of people. You cannot argue that there's not a serious problem out there. You cannot argue that programs like this don't help."

Raddatz: "Despite the ruling, the spying program will continue, Charlie, until the appeal has been heard. But that could take some time."

From the CBS Evening News:

Bob Schieffer: "A federal judge today also struck down President Bush's domestic eavesdropping program. The National Security Agency has, of course, been monitoring without warrants the international phone calls and emails of Americans suspected of having ties to terrorists. The judge in Detroit said this is a civil rights violation. The administration disagrees, of course, and is appealing."

From the NBC Nightly News:

Campbell Brown: "And now to the Bush administration's controversial warrantless wiretapping program. A federal judge ruled today that the program is unconstitutional. Judge Anna Diggs Taylor harshly condemned the program saying it violates the First and Fourth Amendments, as well as the 1978 FISA law. The White House said today the administration couldn't disagree more with Taylor's ruling. For now, the program will continue while the ruling is appealed."

From CNN's The Situation Room:

Jeffrey Toobin: "This judge, today's opinion, said it was unconstitutional in very scathing terms. But this was a very liberal judge. You look at the–the sources she cites in her opinion, she almost exclusively cites other liberal judges. I am virtually certain that other courts will see this differently, and the only way to resolve those sorts of differences is to have it wind up in front of the U.S. Supreme Court."

From FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume:

Nina Easton, Fortune Magazine: "Well, the feedback I got today was that this is going to be overturned by the Sixth Circuit, and I thought your legal analyst you had on earlier was remarkably measured. I got, some of the feedback I got was that this was overtly ideological, that the legal reasoning on it was thin. And this question of the standing of these folks you're talking about, the scholars and the journalists and so on, and whether they actually had standing to bring this suit, well, she wrestled with some of those questions, but then she dismissed the other concerns, saying, well, if they don't have standing, then who's going to keep the President, who's going to keep the President, hold his feet to the fire and who's going to let courts come in and hold him accountable? It's like, well, I gotta give him standing, and so I thought that was extremely telling. And the opinion very much did read, she is, she's a liberal Democrat, and it did read like an opinion by somebody who had, was very happy to overturn a program that she really didn't like. I mean, there was, you really didn't see any kind of struggle in the reasoning or anything. It was, you know, as a lot of legal scholars thought, thin."

http://newsbusters.org/node/7045

 

[red states rule]

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?

This Judge wants to make sure the correct Judge decides liberal cases. She has done this before, and her decision on the NSA shows she does not follow the law, she folows her liberalism


http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/tbray/?id=110001857
Disorder in the Court
Judicial shenanigans mar an affirmative-action case. Will Congress investigate?

BY THOMAS J. BRAY
Tuesday, June 18, 2002 12:01 a.m. EDT

Rumors in Washington has it that the House Judiciary Committee may hold hearings into the events surrounding the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' 5-4 decision upholding the University of Michigan Law School's affirmative action program. In a rare break with judicial comity, two judges in the court publicly questioned the procedures that Chief Judge Boyce Martin, a Carter appointee, had set out in the case.

A spokesman for the House Judiciary Committee didn't return calls asking for comment. But in the continuing war over control of the judiciary now taking place in the Democratic-controlled Senate, it wouldn't be surprising if House Republicans sensed a ripe target in the Sixth Circuit--which is down to only eight of its 16 authorized active judges. (One judge retired after participating in the Michigan case.) The Senate so far has scheduled hearings for only one of President Bush's nominations to the court, the fourth busiest of the nation's 13 federal appeals courts.

Some observers also believe the Michigan case was part of a disturbing pattern at the Sixth Circuit. Judge Martin faced similar allegations of high-handed behavior in a case last year in which liberal-leaning judges sought to block the execution of an Ohio prisoner convicted of murdering a fellow inmate. After a three-judge panel formed by a blind draw refused to stay the sentence, Judge Martin ordered a hearing by the full court, allegedly giving members of the original panel only a few hours' notice. It was "the most bizarre process this court has ever seen," protested Judge Richard Suhrheinrich--since retired--in a written opinion at the time.

Eyebrows also rose this year when the chief judge landed on several judicial panels reviewing legislative redistricting processes in the circuit, which includes Kentucky and Tennessee as well as Michigan and Ohio. Two of the panels consisted entirely of Democratic appointees, reversing a longstanding practice of ensuring that at least one appointee from each party would participate in these politically charged cases.

In fairness, the Michigan redistricting panel, which included Judge Martin, ultimately threw out the Democratic challenge to a plan devised by the state's Republican-dominated government. And the Ohio execution ultimately was allowed to go forward despite last-minute claims of new evidence (which, it became clear, had been available to the defendants' lawyers all along).

And Judge Martin's propensity for serving on panels hearing sensitive cases might be explained by the depleted ranks of the Sixth Circuit. "Those who complain should talk to their U.S. senators," Judge Martin told me last month when I called to ask about the status of the redistricting cases.

But it is rare for sitting judges, even those with roots in a different party, to go public with their grievances over court procedures. In order to maintain public confidence, judges tend to put a collegial face on even the bitterest disagreements. But so poisonous has the atmosphere on the Sixth Circuit become, according to court sources, that some of the judges simply refuse to talk to each other.





The latest rupture came to public attention in the dissent Judge Danny Boggs, a Reagan appointee, in the University of Michigan case. Judge Boggs dissented on the substance of the case, ridiculing the majority's pretense that the university's racial preferences amounted only to a "plus" factor as opposed to an unconstitutional quota. But the real bombshell was a "procedural appendix" that he attached to his dissent, making clear his belief that the chief judge had improperly assigned himself to a three-judge panel hearing the case, then failed to disclose for three months a request by the plaintiff for an en banc hearing by the full court. During that time, two of the court's more conservative judges took "senior status," retiring from the pool of active judges who to hear any new en banc cases, and tipping the balance of power on the court.
Judge Karen Nelson Moore, in an opinion concurring with the court's majority, defended Judge Martin's actions, claiming they were consistent with court policy laid down the prior year and in any case wouldn't have changed the outcome of the case. Moreover, she asserted the Boggs revelations would have the effect of shaking "public confidence" in the courts and thus were "nothing short of shameful."

But several sources close to the court say the new policy of withholding en banc petitions until briefs were fully filed was news to them. And sweeping the issue under the rug seems a poor way of upholding public confidence. Nor was this the first hint that the University of Michigan case might be the object of unusual treatment. "Affirmative action cases seem to bring out the worst in our courts," observes a lawyer close to the Michigan cases.

Earlier, Chief Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the federal District Court in Detroit tried to take the suit against the law school away from Judge Bernard Freedman, who had been assigned it through a blind draw--and who was suspected of being skeptical about affirmative action--and consolidate it with a similar suit against the university's undergraduate admissions practice, which Judge Patrick Duggan was hearing. The chief judge dropped that effort was dropped after the judge hearing the law school complaint went public with a blistering opinion objecting to what he termed "the highly irregular" effort of the chief judge. Judge Duggan ruled in favor of the undergraduate racial preferences, while Judge Freedman ruled against the law school preferences.





A House hearing into the goings-on at the Sixth Circuit may have a disciplining effect, though Democrats and the liberal media are likely to dismiss it as a partisan witch hunt. An investigation by the federal judicial system's administrative office might be preferable. But at the very least, Sixth Circuit procedures could use some brushing up. Procedure isn't a technical issue; it lies at the heart of Anglo-Saxon law and the perception that justice is being done.
As for the broader issue of Mr. Bush's judicial appointments, Sen. Charles Schumer and his colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee have been loudly defending their refusal to hold hearings on Bush nominees who are supposedly outside the "mainstream." But is it "mainstream" to fiddle with procedures that guarantee a fair hearing to all parties appearing before a court? Maybe the Senate should take a look at the Sixth Circuit as well.

Mr. Bray is a staff columnist at the Detroit News. His OpinionJournal.com column appears Tuesdays.

 

[red states rule]

That this was a political decision more than a legal one is proven by the language of the decision itself: "There are no hereditary kings in America," wrote Judge Anna Diggs Taylor.

Of course, the NY Times loved the decision, calling it "good news," lauding the opinion as "careful" and "thoroughly grounded." Engaging in some intemperate language of its own, the Times claims that Judge Taylor "has reasserted the rule of law over a lawless administration.

This will be overturned the the US Supreme Court sine this is clearly a political decision and not a legal one

 

[MtnBiker]

Ummmmmmmm....you can start with Bush v Gore for a start.

 

[red states rule]

The liberal media no longer even pretends to be unbiased. They are now shoing their bias very openly for all to see.

Perhaps that is the reason for their declining ratings........


Olbermann Bolsters 'Judicial Smackdown' of NSA Spying on 'Our' Phone Calls
Posted by Brad Wilmouth on August 18, 2006 - 03:02.
On Thursday's Countdown show, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann bolstered the ruling by Federal Judge Ann Diggs Taylor against the Bush administration's controversial NSA spying program that involves warrantless monitoring of international phone calls when one participant is a terrorist suspect. Referring to the ruling as a "judicial smackdown" and a "stunning ruling" against the program, Olbermann repeatedly referred to the NSA program as monitoring "our" phone calls or "our" emails. The MSNBC host further contended that since the program was revealed, "anybody who had actually read the Constitution" believed it would eventually be ruled as "patently illegal." Olbermann's guest discussing the topic was liberal law professor Jonathan Turley, who labeled Judge Taylor's ruling as a "very thoughtful opinion" and called efforts by conservatives to discredit her as a liberal Carter appointee as "distasteful." By contrast, CNN and FNC featured guests who questioned Judge Taylor's judicial wisdom. (Transcript follows)

Olbermann teased the segment, referring to surveillance of "our" phone calls and emails, and mocking the administration's claims that the NSA program had helped stop terrorists: "Unconstitutional: A federal judge in Detroit orders Bush administration eavesdropping on our calls and emails halted immediately. The administration appeals, invoking the purported liquid bomb plot, claiming there is proof the wiretaps stopped terrorists, and the proof is that the administration says it stopped terrorists."

As the Countdown host introduced the show's lead story on the JonBenet Ramsey case, Olbermann previewed the NSA story, again referring to "our" phone calls and emails: "Good evening from Los Angeles. It is not the day's most important news. Clearly, that would be a stunning ruling out of a Michigan court concluding that George Bush and his Attorney General and his National Security Agency violated the Constitution by illegally intercepting our phone calls and our emails."

After two more plugs, Olbermann introduced the segment: "From the moment in December when the New York Times first revealed the existence of the government's secret warrantless surveillance program, nearly anybody who had actually read the Constitution at some point believed that it would be only a matter of time until a court of law ruled such spying to be patently illegal. Our fourth story in the Countdown tonight, the matter of time took just 35 weeks. The Bush administration's first attempt to politicize today's judicial smackdown taking mere minutes."

After Olbermann's opening question to Turley in which he referred to "domestic spying" with "many fangs," during Turley's answer, the liberal law professor brought up the "difficult implication" that President Bush "could well have committed a federal crime ... 30 times."

Olbermann finally brought up the fact that Judge Taylor was a Carter appointee as he characterized conservatives as "making hay" out of her history, which ended up serving to queue up Turley to condemn the questioning of Judge Taylor's ideology as "distasteful" and giving his view that her ruling was a "very thoughtful opinion."

Olbermann: "The response to this from the White House, there's nothing of course like claiming you have secret proof that you stopped all sorts of bad things by rewriting the Constitution, but the conservatives are already making hay out of the fact that Judge Taylor was an appointee of President Carter. Where does the case go next legally? And in following it, do we have to follow the personal politics of the judges? Or are there any judges who are just judges anymore?"

Turley: "Well, that's what's really distasteful, you know. This is not the first judge to rule against the administration. But every time a judge rules against the administration, they're either too Democratic or they're too tall or too short, or they're Pisces. I mean, it, you can, all this spin, this effort to personalize it is really doing a great injustice to our system. If you look at this opinion, it's a very thoughtful opinion. The problem is not the judge. The problem is a lack of authority. You know, when Gonzales says I've got something back in my safe, and if you could see it, you'd all agree with me, well, unless there's a federal statute in his safe, then it's not going to make a difference."

Olbermann concluded the segment seeming to show disagreement with the idea that Congress could pass a law that would be constitutional explicitly giving the President the authority to engage in the warrantless NSA surveillance in question. After Turley argued that in order to discredit Judge Taylor's ruling that "you need to show me a statute, you need to show me part of the Constitution," Olbermann chimed in: "And the Constitution, not just a, say, Arlen Specter-sponsored law that would permit this according to the Congress, correct?"

Turley argued that Specter's bill was an "absurd" bill: "Well, if Specter goes forward with that absurd bill that he wrote with Dick Cheney, I would be surprised. I mean, if they actually move this into a secret court after a judge found the President was acting unlawfully, it will be the whitewash of the century."

Below is a transcript of relevant portions of the August 17 Countdown show:

Keith Olbermann, in opening teaser: "Which of these stories will you be talking about tomorrow? Unconstitutional: A federal judge in Detroit orders Bush administration eavesdropping on our calls and emails halted immediately. The administration appeals, invoking the purported liquid bomb plot, claiming there is proof the wiretaps stopped terrorists, and the proof is that the administration says it stopped terrorists."
...

Olbermann, introducing the lead story on JonBenet Ramsey: "Good evening from Los Angeles. It is not the day's most important news. Clearly, that would be a stunning ruling out of a Michigan court concluding that George Bush and his Attorney General and his National Security Agency violated the Constitution by illegally intercepting our phone calls and our emails. We will cover that in depth in a moment. ..."
...

Olbermann, before commercial break at 8:12 p.m.: "To the hard news of the day, and it certainly is going down hard at the White House. The Bush administration's warrant-free wiretap program, a federal judge says it has to stop, it has to stop now, analysis on the import of a ruling of unconstitutionality with Jonathan Turley."
...

Olbermann, during commercial break at 8:13 p.m.: "The federal judge says the Bush administration is breaking the law, warrantless wiretaps illegal, unconstitutional. The White House says it has proof the judge is wrong. The proof's a secret. That's next, this is Countdown."
...

Olbermann: "From the moment in December when the New York Times first revealed the existence of the government's secret warrantless surveillance program, nearly anybody who had actually read the Constitution at some point believed that it would be only a matter of time until a court of law ruled such spying to be patently illegal. Our fourth story in the Countdown tonight, the matter of time took just 35 weeks. The Bush administration's first attempt to politicize today's judicial smackdown taking mere minutes. Federal Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruling in Detroit today, becoming the first to strike down the National Security Agency's program, ordering it stopped at once, although how fast that is is yet to be determined, calling it an unconstitutional violation of privacy and free speech rights. Quoting Judge Taylor in her 43-page opinion, 'Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution.' Within the hour, though, unnamed senior White House officials pointing out to NBC News, that the ruling comes just one week after the purported London bomb plot in which they claim telephone surveillance was used to gather intelligence. By name, the press secretary, Mr. Snow, also evoking the British arrests in a written statement. Quote, 'Last week America and the world received a stark reminder that terrorists are still plotting to attack our country and kill innocent people. ... We could not disagree more with this ruling.' The Justice Department meanwhile indicating it will do all it can to fight the ruling."

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Justice Department: "Today a district court judge in Michigan ruled that the program was unlawful. We disagree with the decision, respectfully disagree with the decision of the judge, and we have appealed the decision, and we, there is a stay in place. And so we will continue to utilize the program to ensure that America is safer."

Olbermann: "Joining me now to assess the impact of the ruling today, constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley, law professor at George Washington University. Good evening, Jonathan."

Jonathan Turley, George Washington University: "Thanks. Hi, Keith."

Olbermann: "Domestic spying by the Bush administration has many fangs. Is this specific to the wiretapping of the international calls and emails? Or is it broader than that?"

Turley: "... The real tough question is what we would do about it. If a court of appeals upholds this judge, it means that the President could well have committed a federal crime not once, but 30 times. And so that's the difficult implication."

Olbermann: "The response to this from the White House, there's nothing of course like claiming you have secret proof that you stopped all sorts of bad things by rewriting the Constitution, but the conservatives are already making hay out of the fact that Judge Taylor was an appointee of President Carter. Where does the case go next legally? And in following it, do we have to follow the personal politics of the judges? Or are there any judges who are just judges anymore?"

Turley: "Well, that's what's really distasteful, you know. This is not the first judge to rule against the administration. But every time a judge rules against the administration, they're either too Democratic or they're too tall or too short, or they're Pisces. I mean, it, you can, all this spin, this effort to personalize it is really doing a great injustice to our system. If you look at this opinion, it's a very thoughtful opinion. The problem is not the judge. The problem is a lack of authority. You know, when Gonzales says I've got something back in my safe, and if you could see it, you'd all agree with me, well, unless there's a federal statute in his safe, then it's not going to make a difference."

Olbermann: "The administration tried forever to get this suit dismissed on the ruse of state secrets, but, Jonathan, do we really think the country would dissolve into a bowl of jello if the courts threw out the administration's national security rationale for wiretapping? Have we ever noticed this in the past when previous administrations have cited national security of the most urgent import? Do you recall the country ever going out of business or the safety of the citizens every just vanishing?"

Turley: "Well, you know, there is this appearance of 'let's keep fear alive,' you know, and, you know, how we read the Constitution will depend upon how close we are to the London arrests. That's really immaterial. I mean, in a country like ours, it is as important, if not more important, how we do things, as it is what we do. And we can't uphold the system of law, the rule of law, if we violate it. And, you know, here I think one of the most important things this judge did was to say, look, I'm looking at whether you have authority to do this. And I can do that without looking at all of these secret documents you're referring to, you need to show me a statute, you need to show me part of the Constitution. And I think she was absolutely correct in that."

Olbermann: "And the Constitution, not just a, say, Arlen Specter-sponsored law that would permit this according to the Congress, correct?"

Turley: "Well, if Specter goes forward with that absurd bill that he wrote with Dick Cheney, I would be surprised. I mean, if they actually move this into a secret court after a judge found the President was acting unlawfully, it will be the whitewash of the century."

Olbermann: "It hasn't been a long century yet, so we'll see. Jonathan Turley of George Washington University, as always, sir, great thanks for your time."

Turley: "Thanks."

http://newsbusters.org/node/7046

 

[Bullypulpit]

...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...

 

[CSM]

...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...

You know darn well this isn't over. They had to shop around pretty hard to find a judge that would render a decision based on politics.

 

[CockySOB]

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2006/August/06_ag_550.html

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 Yesterday’s 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

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.

Here's the PDF of the ruling direct from the US Courts website (hat tip: RedState.com)
http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/eGov/taylorpdf/06 10204.pdf

I see one of two things happening from here out.
1) SCOTUS will review the case and find that the TSP was (and is) legal.
2) SCOTUS will review the Constitutionality of FISA, and if it illegally encroaches on enumerated Executive powers, might strike it down, leading to a reversal of Taylor's decision via the legal domino effect.

But the case is on appeal to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, and it has to go through there first before going to SCOTUS.

 

[Mr. P]

And lets remember that interception of overseas calls has been deemed legal, and a common practice for many years, as I recall.
Lets not confuse this with the data mining on domestic calls, which IMO is illegal.

 

[red states rule]

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.

Liberals are liberals first, and Amercians second.

Now they see this insane decision as their way of impeaching Pres Bush. The liberal MSM is leading the way

http://newsbusters.org/node/7056
GMA Highlights GWU's Turley: Court Ruling Could Lead to Bush Impeachment
Posted by Megan McCormack on August 18, 2006 - 12:17.

Friday’s morning shows largely preferred the JonBenet Ramsey case over yesterday’s district court ruling declaring the National Security Agency’s terrorist surveillance program to be unconstitutional. NBC’s "Today" and CBS’ "The Early Show" limited their reporting on the issue to brief anchor reads, as did their evening news counterparts, as the MRC’s Brad Wilmouth previously reported.

"Good Morning America," however, did devote more than a few seconds on the topic, with ABC’s Jessica Yellin reporting from the White House. In her report, Yellin never acknowledged the liberal background of Judge Ann Diggs Taylor, who, Yellin pointed out, "accuses the President of acting like a king" and says the NSA program "blatantly disregards" the parameters established in the Bill of Rights. Yellin labeled the court’s decision a "stinging setback" for President Bush, and highlighted this warning to the President from George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley :

Jonathan Turley: "He could be impeached. And people should not be underestimating that. It's true that this Congress does not want to--"

This statement seemed to go a bit to far for Yellin, who appeared skeptical:

Yellin: "Come on. He's not going to be impeached for this program."

Turley: "Well the question--that is a political question."

The full transcript of Yellin’s report follows:

Kate Snow: "We begin to--with a major blow to President Bush's war on terror. A judge found wiretapping without a warrant was unconstitutional. The administration is appealing. ABC's Jessica Yellin joins us with more. Good morning, Jessica."

Jessica Yellin: "Good morning, Kate. This is a stinging setback for the President and the way he's defending the nation against terrorists. In this ruling, the federal judge essentially accuses the President of acting like a king and she orders him to stop the program soon. President Bush is passionate about the NSA spy program."

President George W. Bush: "I believe I've been hired by the people to do my job and that's to protect the people and that's what I'm going to do."

Yellin: "But federal judge Anna Diggs Taylor says it's illegal. The President cannot authorize the NSA to eavesdrop on phone calls in the U.S. without a court warrant, even in the war on terror. She says the program blatantly disregards the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Political reaction to the ruling was fierce. Senate majority leader Frist urged quick reversal of this unfortunate decision and the White House says they couldn't disagree more with the ruling. But an outspoken critic of the program warns of serious consequences if the ruling is upheld by higher courts."

Jonathan Turley: "He could be impeached. And people should not be underestimating that. It's true that this Congress does not want to--"

Yellin: "Come on. He's not going to be impeached for this program."

Turley: "Well the question--that is a political question."

Yellin: "Now, this morning, one White House official just dismissed the critics and said that the administration is confident the decision will be overturned on appeal. Now, right now the NSA wiretap program is still active and in place, at least until further court action. Kate?"

Snow: "Jessica Yellin at the White House this morning. Thank you."

 

[Bullypulpit]

<center><img src=http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/08/17/washington/0818-nat-FISA.gif></center>

The above is an outline of the process for obtaining a FISA warrant. If Chimpy and his pet AG find the process to be too cumbersome, then they need to go to Congress and have the law changed. It is not within the Constitutionally outlined powers of the POTUS to be a law unto himself...He is neither king nor emperor.

As it stands now, the process is so loose that there is no reason to try and go around it by violating FISA.