Originally Posted By Darkbeer This from the New York Times... <a href="http://www.registerguard.com/news/2006/08/19/a1.nsawiretap.0819.p1.php?section=nation_world" target="_blank">http://www.registerguard.com/n ews/2006/08/19/a1.nsawiretap.0819.p1.php?section=nation_world</a> >>Even legal experts who agreed with a federal judge's conclusion on Thursday that a National Security Administration surveillance program is unlawful were distancing themselves from the decision's reasoning and rhetoric on Friday. They said the opinion overlooked important precedents, failed to engage the government's major arguments, used circular reasoning, substituted passion for analysis and did not even offer the best reasons for its own conclusions. Discomfort with the quality of the decision is almost universal, said Howard Bashman, a Pennsylvania lawyer whose Web log provides comprehensive and nonpartisan reports on legal developments. ''It does appear,'' Bashman said, ''that folks on all sides of the spectrum, both those who support it and those who oppose it, say the decision is not strongly grounded in legal authority.'' The main problem, scholars sympathetic to the decision's bottom line said, is that the judge, Anna Diggs Taylor, relied on novel and questionable constitutional arguments when more straightforward statutory ones were available. For instance, she ruled that the program, which eavesdrops on international communications of people in the United States without a warrant, violated the First Amendment because it might have chilled the speech of people who feared they might have been monitored. That ruling is ''rather innovative'' and ''not a particularly good argument,'' Jack Balkin, a law professor at Yale who believes that the program is illegal, wrote on his Web log. Taylor also ruled that the program violated the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. But scholars said she failed to take account of the so-called ''special needs'' exception to the amendment's requirement that the government obtain a warrant before engaging in some surveillance unrelated to routine law enforcement. ''It's just a few pages of general ruminations about the Fourth Amendment, much of it incomplete and some of it simply incorrect,'' Orin Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University who believes that the legal justifications for the program are weak, said of Taylor's Fourth Amendment analysis on a Web log called the Volokh Conspiracy. Taylor gave less attention to the more modest statutory argument that has been widely advanced by the program's critics. They say it violates a 1978 law requiring warrants from a secret court and that neither a 2001 congressional authorization to use military force against al-Qaeda nor the president's constitutional authority allowed the administration to ignore the law. A recent Supreme Court decision strengthened that argument. Taylor did not cite it. Some scholars speculated that Taylor, of the U.S. District Court in Detroit, may have rushed her decision lest the case be consolidated with several others pending in federal court in San Francisco or moved to a specialized court in Washington as contemplated by pending legislation. Taylor heard the last set of arguments in the case a little more than a month ago. <<
Originally Posted By Beaumandy This judge is a classic example of a liberal activist judge who is taking her place on the bench and using it to promote crazy left wing views that are on the par with a Freshman in Jr. College. From the second she rendered her " reasoning " it was obvious her ruling was flawed on all levels. Darkbeers last post is a common take on her pathetic argument now. Yet we have a lawyer on here who not only agreed with her findings but also he claimed that 80% of his lawyer buddies also agreed. That.. is my favorite post of all time on here.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By gadzuux Wait - which fool? Seriously, MS - welcome to world events. We try not to be quite that blunt. Anybody can post a vicious screed - aim higher.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Gadzuux, if someone is going to call me names on here that is fine. But they need to at least tell me why and they need to have something to add to the thread in the way of a thought out argument, even if the argument is weak. Kinda like your arguments. LOL
Originally Posted By mele <<you are going to need to tell me why I am a filthy liar and a dirtbag>> LOL
Originally Posted By YourPalEd Obviously the wiretaps are illegal. The known traitor, george bush, signed an oath that requires he follows the law. He was using the nea wiretaps before 9/11. What the sickness of the media, is everyone knows that only criminals would support proven traitors, like george bush, and karl rove. Every single post placed here by the ignorant republicans, that attempted to show legal precedent, starts with a derogatory remark that would have it thrown out instantly. The hubris of republicans, who can only copy those that do, are that they are competent lawyers. What will strengthen america is how it's legal system, in the face of propagandistic control by parasitic cabals, will win in the end. These traitors, and abettors, against america, who lower our defenses against our enemies, and god, at every chance they get, these hateful, sick criminals, are being removed. Have faith, all republicans are liars, you know it, i know it, they know it. They have no where to go now, but jail.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Of the 30 or so lawyers I've talked with since this started through today, I'd say 80/20 in favor of the ruling. -- I haven't had a chance to look at it other than on the surface yet, but initially, it would seem her analysis is correct>> STPH This is my favorite post of all time from you STPH. I will bring it up when need be for here on out when you decide to dazzle us with your legal insights.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd Thank god tv has been turned off. Tv is an optical modem that places software programing in your head. Only fools watch tv's anymore. That's why the inexpensive new tv's aren't selling. why buy a tv if only liars, who are trying to use you, are on the tv?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Obviously the wiretaps are illegal.>> Obviously is the word this crack pot judge used again and again in her desion... you know, the decision that 80% of STPH's lawyer frineds and him agreed with. Problem is that these wire taps are not illegal and that has been proven again and again in the past. Don't think I am right? Bet me it won't be overtured in the near future. Ed, you want to bet a grand that this liberal judge ( the real traitor ) gets everturned? Step up dude. <<What the sickness of the media, is everyone knows that only criminals would support proven traitors, like george bush, and karl rove.>> OK Ed, I guess I will play. How are Bush and Rove " traitors " by wanting to protect you from another terror attack? I notice you and your lib buds never say anything bad about the terrorists, just Bush. That is how screwed up you are and America sees it.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>No, but I also don't think that Executive Power can be curtailed by Judicial fiat.<< And apparently, the Constitution.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy How was the constitution violated by the NSA program cmpaley? You just said it was. How? I will be waiting.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And apparently, the Constitution.> The Constitution clearly places Executive power in the hands of the President.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>The Constitution clearly places Executive power in the hands of the President.<< Yes, it does, but it also puts boundaries around it.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Is that your answer cmpaley? Boundaries on it? How has the president violated these boundaries you talk about? At what point did he cross the line? Did FDR and Abe Linclon also cross your line? Should they have been impeached or sued by the ACLU also? Back it up.... lets roll.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By YourPalEd i would love to read that. Especially if it is written by the george will, of legal experts. You know someone who was raised to be honest, no matter what affiliation they have.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Yes, it does, but it also puts boundaries around it.> Besides needing to stand for election every four years, what boundaries does the Constitution put on the President's Executive power?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.>> It's not reasonable to listen to terrorist phone calls that are coming or going overseas? Sure Gadzuux. Way to radify the " Terrorist Bill of Rights ". The 4th ammendment is not being violated and this ruling will get overturn. Once it is overturned you will pretend it never happend like always.
