Originally Posted By vbdad55 < I guess Beau got mad law skills, yo. (If you think that last line was painful to read, it was worse to write. LOL.)< I think I pulled a muscle in my brain just reading it -- LOL !
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Or he reads the thoughts of lawyers who are actually involved in these matters, like I do. Experts in Constitutional law say this ruling will be overturned." I've already said I see flaws, one in particular. Thing is, a good lawyer can argue either side of a case. Where exactly, do you or your experts see them?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder A court of appeal doesn't get to hear new evidence. In this instance, they review the ruling and look for errors in made in interpreting the law. Assuming they uphold the judge's position regarding standing, how does one overcome the latter part of her opinion, where she discusses the generality of the AUMF versus the specificity of FISA vis a vis the Morales case that sets forth the specificity rule?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Standing and precedent. Here's a few analysis: <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWVlOGNiZmIyMmZkYTg2OGFiYzM3ZGU4Nzc0MjFjNzQ=" target="_blank">http://article.nationalreview. com/?q=OWVlOGNiZmIyMmZkYTg2OGFiYzM3ZGU4Nzc0MjFjNzQ=</a> <a href="http://levin.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGJiNjI3ZGFiMzk5NTQ1MjQ4MmRhMDgyNzhjNjVhYTU=" target="_blank">http://levin.nationalreview.co m/post/?q=OGJiNjI3ZGFiMzk5NTQ1MjQ4MmRhMDgyNzhjNjVhYTU=</a> <a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/" target="_blank">http://www.powerlineblog.com/</a> You'll have to scroll down a bit for the last one. Of course the Wall Street Journal thinks it's a bad decision, but so does the Washington Post. I'm sure these guys talk to lawyers before they write their editiorials, if they don't have law training themselves. <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008816" target="_blank">http://www.opinionjournal.com/ editorial/feature.html?id=110008816</a> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/17/AR2006081701540.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/17/AR2006081701540.html</a>
Originally Posted By Darkbeer From the WSJ link in the last post... <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008816" target="_blank">http://www.opinionjournal.com/ editorial/feature.html?id=110008816</a> >>So let's set aside the judge's Star Chamber rhetoric and try to examine her argument, such as it is. Take the Fourth Amendment first. The "unreasonable search and seizure" and warrant requirements of that amendment have their roots in the 18th-century abuses of the British crown. Those abuses involved the search and arrest of the King's political opponents under general and often secret warrants. Judge Taylor sees an analogy here, but 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. As for the First Amendment, Judge Taylor asserts that the plaintiffs--a group that includes the ACLU and assorted academics, lawyers and journalists who believe their conversations may have been tapped but almost surely weren't--had their free-speech rights violated because al Qaeda types are now afraid to speak to them on the phone. But the wiretapping program is not preventing anyone from speaking on the phone. Quite the opposite--if the terrorists stopped talking on the phone, there would be nothing to wiretap. Perhaps the plaintiffs should have sued the New York Times, as it was that paper's disclosure of the program that created the "chill" on "free speech" that Judge Taylor laments. The real nub of this dispute is the Constitution's idea of "inherent powers," although those two pages of her decision are mostly devoted to pouring scorn on the very concept. But jurists of far greater distinction than Judge Taylor have recognized that the Constitution vests the bulk of war-making power with the President. It did so, as the Founders explained in the Federalist Papers, for reasons of energy, dispatch, secrecy and accountability. Before yesterday, no American court had ever ruled that the President lacked the Constitutional right to conduct such wiretaps. President Carter signed the 1978 FISA statute that established the special court to approve domestic wiretaps even as his Administration declared it was not ceding any Constitutional power. And in the 2002 decision In Re: Sealed Case, the very panel of appellate judges that hears FISA appeals noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." We couldn't find Judge Taylor's attempt to grapple with those precedents, perhaps because they'd have interfered with the lilt of her purple prose. 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. <<
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder You're going to have to do better than to cite biased sources, Doug. To wit: The first National Review article is nothing more than a personal attack on Judhe Taylor, as are all te links yoiu provide. This is the only one that even attempts to review the issues, but the author does the same thing that Taylor gets accused of, cherry picking from the cases. He also avoids altogether addressing why it is so problematic getting a warrant 72 hours after the fact. Levin's piece attacks the ACLU, which obviously clouds his judgment here. He also the laughable activist judge aspect. I'll ask the question again- what's more conservative and less activist than upholding the law, in this case the Fourth Amendment and FISA? if anything, activist would be judicially endorsing the Administration's slapped together views. The Powerline link provides absolutely nothing. They call the judge a few names, then go to lunch or something. The Opinion Journal is the one I read first, and set the tone as far as personal attacks on Judge Taylor. After they get done skewring her, they admit she's probably right. Schizophrenic, which also describes the Post's piece. They apparently agree with Taylor, but don't like her writing. The Constitution is written in rather stilted fashion as well, but as Taylor points out, it's help up and served us well for a long time.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Gee Darkbeer, thanks for proving my point about the Opinion Journal. You elected to waste bandwith on it, I didn't.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder And more more thing, to borrow from Levin. Much is made of the way Taylor wrote her opinion. People forget a couple of things. She's a trial court, not an appellate panel. Trial courts rule on the evidence presented to them and are bound by precedent. Taylor's fully aware she was going to get appealed. Appellate courts can set new law, Taylor can't. She was asked to make exceptions that she's not empowered to make. Refusing to do so is about as un-activist as one could get. And what's incredibly nauseating is some of these pundits crying about how she's "not acountable". Sure she is. There's a judicial review panel, there's an impeachment process. However, Constitutionally, the judicial branch of government was purposely set up that way over 200 years ago EXACTLY so decisions wouldn't be reached due to political pressures. To whine and cry when a decision doesn't go their way and call her unaccountable and activist is to ignore this essential precept or display one's incredible ignorance of some of the country's core foundations.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Gee, lets see what CNN has said.... <a href="http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2006/cyb20060818.asp#1" target="_blank">http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts /2006/cyb20060818.asp#1</a> >>By contrast, as noticed by the MRC's Megan McCormack (see item #2 below), 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" panel 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." <<
Originally Posted By YourPalEd I love reading, how lawyers, trapped in their legal precedent are putting the known traitors, george bush, karl rove, cheney, gonzalez, john roberts, and the other known criminals in jail for their crimes against the constitution of the united states. The fact the supreme court, a federal institution, decided on the electorate votes of florida on the sick day that will live through history, 11/2000, a date that will live through history, as the crime that put half the defense industry, and the oil industry behind bars. Saudi arabia will lose it's americans assets for trying to buy our government, through these sick, lowlife criminals. 11/2000, when gore had 77 percent of the vote, and the american people, republican and democrat alike had no intention of voting for bush. The fact that these people with all their power and control of the media used their power to falsify this election, is why the world is falling apart. Nothing they say will ever be true, now. Nothing any of their supporters say will be true ever again. They are crooks. Everyone knows they are crooks, including the crooks. All republicans are now liars and traitors, if they support this anti-american sellout. Anyone, who makes even one comment in favor of a republican or the other terrorists who have taken over the white house, are marked down as the selfish antiamerican crooks, and traitors they are. The fact that republicans are dropping like flies into our jails, proves me right. Anyone, who can't afford a lawyer, will be provided one by the state.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<You're going to have to do better than to cite biased sources, Doug. To wit:>> STPH, the fact that you can't see how flawed this decision is shows us your level of legal ability. You rant about biased sources yet you give a pass to the biased liberal judge who gave the ACLU what they wanted with her pathetic decision. I will take Mark Levine and his take on the constitution over anybody you can put up as an expert anyday. The fact that most of your lawyer friends AGREE with this liberal judge tells us all we need to know about your circles. This joke of a decision will be overturned because she is flat out baffled about the law. She is a partisan hack, activist judge who so bad wanted to punish Bush that she let all reason go out the window. I would reccomend this breakdown of the decision for you and your buds who think the judge made a great ruling. <a href="http://baseballcrank.com/archives2/2006/08/warlaw_the_nsa.php" target="_blank">http://baseballcrank.com/archi ves2/2006/08/warlaw_the_nsa.php</a>
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Lets just forget the deicision for a second and how flawed it was. Lets talk about the democrats, the liberals, the ACLU, and their Terrorist Bill of Rights I like to talk about. These people are working as hard as they can to help the terrorist win. It is about as clear as day at this point. Anybody who celebrates this decsion is a fool. You might as well celebrate a decision to take all guns away from the cops in Compton. The NY Times ( a bunch of libs ) exposes the NSA program with a front page story. Then the ACLU ( a bunch of libs ) comes in with CAIR, ( Muslims ) and files a lawsuit to stop the NSA program, a program that is set up to keep us all alive. Finally, the ACLU shops the suit to a liberal court in Mich. where they get a Jimmy Carter liberal judge to go along with them and rule the program must stop. Do we all feel safer now? Do we benefit from the libs letting the terrorist talk withouy us listening in? Was anyone harmed by the NSA program besides terrorists? I am here to tell you that this is going to kill the libs come election time. Americans are not going to be down with a bunch of moonbats and Muslims telling us we can't spy on a terrorist phone call... especially when the program has WORKED to stop terror attacks. The Brooklyn bridge would be gone in a terror attack if not for this program. The fact that the judge can't explain her decision and that the ruling will be overturned is just going to make the left look even more terror freindly in the end. Nice job libs... you guys are pathetic and dangerous and the terrorists best friend. In fact, I want a liberal to tell me how if they WERE trying to help the terrorists, how they would have done anything different?
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://breakingnews.redstate.com/blogs/qlangley/2006/aug/18/surveillance_and_the_first_amendment" target="_blank">http://breakingnews.redstate.c om/blogs/qlangley/2006/aug/18/surveillance_and_the_first_amendment</a> >>Judge Anna Diggs Taylor takes a rather peculiar view of the First Amendment. (Her view of the Fourth Amenmendment is more easily explicable, though comprehensively wrong, as will be shown in another column). She seems to think that the First Amendment not only guarantees freedom of speech, but immunises people against any consequences of what they say. If people fear that the government might be listening in on their telephone conversations it will make them afraid to speak their mind. Even this problem she addresses the wrong way round, by seeking to suspend the constitutional powers of the President, rather than granting injunctions against the idiots who spread unsubstantiated rumours about the government listening in on people's phone calls. But if we take seriously Judge Taylor's reading of the First Amendment, the consequences are far reaching. Jon Mark Karr's words - confessing to a role in JonBenet Ramsey's death - will be inadmissable in court. No-one can be prosecuted on the basis of their words, or people might fear to tell the truth about what they have done. Of course, what the First Amendment really says is that you cannot be prosecuted FOR saying something. It does not mean that what you say cannot be evidence of another and substantive crime. No-one is insulated from the consequences of their actions or their words. Some actions constitute crimes, and some words constitute evidence of crimes.<<
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Posts 112, 113 and 114 are nothing more than puerile drivel. Hard to say what relevance post 115 has to the discussion, since the poster never has any opinion of his own.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You're going to have to do better than to cite biased sources, Doug. . . The Opinion Journal is the one I read first, and set the tone as far as personal attacks on Judge Taylor. After they get done skewring her, they admit she's probably right.> You'll have to do better than mischaracterize those who disagree with you and your collegues "unbiased" opinions. No where in the Opinion Journal piece do they suggest that Judge Taylor is probably right, and your characterizations of the other pieces are likewise inaccurate.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Do we benefit from the libs letting the terrorist talk without us listening in? << Why do you keep repeating this? You continually misrepresent the argument, when everyone knows what the point of contention is. You're not scoring any points by pretending this is about prohibiting the government from the wiretaps. It's about warrants. It's about oversight. It's about the US constitution. That's what you're opposing. >> The fact that the judge can't explain her decision and that the ruling will be overturned is just going to make the left look even more terror freindly in the end. << Her ruling extends for forty pages. When you say she can't explain it, you mean you can't understand it. >> Anybody who celebrates this decision is a fool. << Careful, there - you're adopting foolish positions, continuously making foolish comments, and asserting broad statements that are unsupportable.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Sorry, but you came out in favor of this ruling and crowed about how 80% of your lawyer buddies agree with the decsion also. The decision is being ripped all over the internet and elsewhere not because the judge is a Jimmy Carter lib, but because she is clueless about the 1st and the 4th ammendment and she shows she is in the dark about presidential powers during wartime. I suppose this ditz would have been against Abe Lincoln and FDR and how they prosecuted thier wars. ( they won ) When this gets overturned I am going to remind you nonstop that you supported her. My God, we are trying to stop terrorists from killing us and we have people who want us to simply let us get hit! YOu can spare us the argument that the program was illegal. That is code for we want the terroirsts to have their rights. Until you STPH, can show us a few victims of the NSA program ( besides the beloved terrorists ) you are going to be on the losing side.... again.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << It's about warrants. It's about oversight. It's about the US constitution. That's what you're opposing. >> The program is legal. It has been put in front of many lawyers and members of congress. The program works because it monitors millions of calling PATTERNS. You can't get a warrant to do this type of monitoring... but don't let that confuse you. Think about it Gadzuux. You and your Frisco buds hate Bush so much, you are willing to put your life at risk by letting terrorists talk without us monitoring them. Mental disorder. THEN, you libs want us to elect YOU to take care of us?????? FAt chance.
