« Fun With Sandwiches | Main | The Inherent Victory Of Terrorists.... »
August 19, 2006
Legislating From The Bench
The ACLU and fellow traitors to America, getting no satisfaction from Congress in the way of sabotaging our country's self defense capabilities against terrorism, have once again resorted to finding a sleazy leftist federal judge to employ as a pro-tem, one person legislature, a judge appointed by former President Jimmy Carter -- I know, that's pretty surprising, right? Not! -- no less -- to declare the NSA's warrantless wiretapping operation -- the very type of protective measure that only just saved thousands of people from being blown up on trans-Atlantic flights -- illegal.
It's truly amazing what kind of crud finds its way onto the federal bench, just look at the 9th Circus Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco -- well, don't look at it if you have a weak stomach, like viewing the judge in question, Anna Diggs Taylor, looking at it might inspire vomiting from any patriotic American. It's interesting that the traitoress is in Detroit, one of our domestic enclaves of large Islamic population -- Islam is, after all, the enemy she seeks to aid and abet.
We can at least be grateful that President Taylor's judgment won't be the last on the matter. The Justice Department immediately announced it will appeal and the injunction has been stayed for the moment. But her decision is all the more noteworthy for coming on the heels of the surveillance-driven roll up of the terrorist plot in Britain to blow up U.S.-bound airliners. In this environment, monitoring the communications of our enemies is neither a luxury nor some sinister plot to chill domestic dissent. It is a matter of life and death.{Emphasis added mine}
I like the way the author of the Opinion Journal piece refers to the treasonous twit as "President Taylor" -- it seems that a lot of liberal judges these days are electing themselves to high office, though usually promoting themselves only to the level of congressional majorities. The political left has been abusing the courts thus for some time now, using them to "legislate" dubious agendas they are unable to obtain from the people we elect to address the very same issues. What judges like Taylor need is to be hauled before Congress and slapped down on C-Span, put firmly in their places on national television, reminded that they are judges, not senators, representatives or the President.
Whatever happened to, "Hey, bitch, this is my corner!"?
Luckily, the self important Anna Diggs Taylor (it's good that somebody digs her, no country loving American would) hardly has the final say in the matter -- a higher court will undoubtedly give her ruling short shrift.
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.
Heh heh.
Update: Old Soldier has a great post up on this also, with links to still other posts.
Posted by Seth at August 19, 2006 12:34 AM
Comments
While I agree that this was a bad decision, even by the standards of leftist influence on the courts, this decision was an aberration. According to this RedState review of commentary, even a number of opponents of the NSA program are sharply critical of the legal reasoning (or lack thereof) behind Judge Taylor's decision. By all reports, the judge (who was a Carter appointee by the way) evidenced a personal agenda, indicated in part by her rush to judgment.
Thus it seems likely that the ultimate fate of the NSA program will have little to do with this decision. This decision fortunately appears not to represent a bellweather of the courts and should not raise undue concern. Now if the appeals courts upholds the decision, then we would have a lot more reason to worry. However, looking at the rest of the judges in the district, Ms. Taylor appears to be hugging the left field flag pole.
Posted by: civil truth at August 19, 2006 08:46 PM
CT --
I entertain little doubt but that Taylor's decision will continue to be a lonely one, and I also believe that the NSA program will prevail --even given the damage already done by the NYT's "expose" of yet another defense secret(thanks for the link, it was well worth the read).
Despite a lot of clamor from liberals, who seem to specialize in clamoring for its own sake, reason will dictate that the program be allowed to continue. The arguments in favor cite precedents and interpretations of the laws involved, to say nothing of reason and common sense, whereas the arguments against are almost totally based on emotional input and feigned paranoia {the left are like small spoiled children in their "squeaky wheel gets the grease" approach to an issue, there are rarely reasoned arguments, just a lot of "shouting" and innuendo}. And of course, the spector of the aborted terror op involving flights from the UK to the US, and the fact that it was this selfsame type of surveillance that foiled the plan, will be fresh in the memories of those rendering the final decision. All in all, the entire exercise will prove, as with many such kerfuffles initiated by partisan portside political entities, to be just another waste of the government's time and the taxpayer's money.
However, what disturbs me the most is this continued penchant the left has for using the courts as a substitute for the U.S. Senate, and of liberal judges who feel the need to elevate their official status to that of lawmaker without first campaigning and getting elected.
Posted by: Seth at August 19, 2006 09:43 PM
