Saturday, August 19, 2006
ACLU vs. NSA.
OK, now that everybody has talked out of their arses over the judge's ruling over warrantless wiretapping, here's the text of her ruling.
ACLU vs. NSA (pdf) -- or I like to call it: Freedom vs. Order.
--ER
ACLU vs. NSA (pdf) -- or I like to call it: Freedom vs. Order.
--ER
Comments:
<< Home
Sometimes when I open your attachments ER I feel like I have just been given a homework assignment. She did cover the ground did she not?
In the "exploding heads" post ELA said: "Ms Taylor's logic demonstrates she's not the brightest of judicial bulbs, eh?"
I think the logic displayed in the attached opinon is a might bit brighter than some I've seen flicker out of the Supreme Court lately. She upheld both the need for secrecy and the need to uphold existing law and the Consitution. Nice tight rope act. One worthy of a real judge.
In the "exploding heads" post ELA said: "Ms Taylor's logic demonstrates she's not the brightest of judicial bulbs, eh?"
I think the logic displayed in the attached opinon is a might bit brighter than some I've seen flicker out of the Supreme Court lately. She upheld both the need for secrecy and the need to uphold existing law and the Consitution. Nice tight rope act. One worthy of a real judge.
# posted by 
: 8:29 PM
: 8:29 PM
Absoulutely.
Here's my take on the "leading legal scholars" who are dissing the ruling.
Being ACADEMIC leading legal scholars, they're used to dealing with incremental change in the interpretation of law, and they think that all the *big* court decisions have been made. They exist only in history.
Bullshit. That sumbitch Bush, or the regents that actually are running the executive branch right now, made a HUGE, historic leap with this deal -- and it DESERVED a HUGE, historic answer from a court.
Even if she is overturned, thank God she had the balls to rule with a wide swath, which forces the judiciary, and the rest of us who are paying attention, to consider the HUGE, historic ramifications of what Bush et al. are doing.
God bless Jimmy Carter!
Here's my take on the "leading legal scholars" who are dissing the ruling.
Being ACADEMIC leading legal scholars, they're used to dealing with incremental change in the interpretation of law, and they think that all the *big* court decisions have been made. They exist only in history.
Bullshit. That sumbitch Bush, or the regents that actually are running the executive branch right now, made a HUGE, historic leap with this deal -- and it DESERVED a HUGE, historic answer from a court.
Even if she is overturned, thank God she had the balls to rule with a wide swath, which forces the judiciary, and the rest of us who are paying attention, to consider the HUGE, historic ramifications of what Bush et al. are doing.
God bless Jimmy Carter!
That is the most important part. She is forcing the higher courts to attack this. They can't make little narrow rulings now because what they don't rule on will be governed by this op. So, one way or another they gotta get after it.
I am not hopeful though. Plus, there are people in the administration who will just go and do it again more secretively. They have no fear of repurcussions because they have enough political support to avoid any serious censure or impeachment.
Post a Comment
I am not hopeful though. Plus, there are people in the administration who will just go and do it again more secretively. They have no fear of repurcussions because they have enough political support to avoid any serious censure or impeachment.
<< Home
