MI Judge Anna Diggs Taylor disarms America

By saul anuzis Comments (5) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Judge Anna Diggs Taylor went over the top in a ruling that is of great concern and threatens our national security. Partisan Democrats jumped all over her ruling to try and get some political gain from it. I think Michigan’s Congressman Pete Hoekstra said it best…see his statement below.

U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, issued the following statement following the ruling by a U.S. District judge in Detroit that the National Security Agency’s Terrorist Surveillance Program violates the Constitution:

“It is disappointing that a judge would take it upon herself to disarm America during a time of war. The very real threat posed by radical Islamists requires every tool at our disposal, including the ability to track financial activity and the communications of terrorists.

The disrupted plot in London last week was a strong reminder that the enemy is still determined to attack America. Limiting the ability to identify their plans and intentions increases the chance that the next time they will be successful.

For nearly four years members of Congress on a bipartisan basis felt that the program was necessary and administered within the boundaries of the law. The U.S. Department of Justice has indicated that it intends to appeal the ruling, and I hope that it is overturned for the sake of our law enforcement and intelligence professionals who need every resource available to them to stop terrorist plots before they are carried out.”

http://migop.blogs.com/blog/2006/08/judge_ann_diggs.html

OK--don't overstate the issue by smagar

Taylor's opinion has been stayed. Few commentators expect it to withstand review. Going from that to "Ann Diggs Taylor Disarms America" is IMO a real stretch.

Let's not cry wolf here.

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

Reply To This — User Info — #1

But what if it's upheld?!!!!! by SGoo

I know the opinion has its holes, but what if the appeals court fills them in?!!!! Then the U.S. will be DISARMED! We'll be left defenseless! NOTHING AT ALL will stand between our families and the terrorists except wiretaps with FISA court approval; wiretaps of communications not involving U.S. citizens; non-electronic surveilance and police work, like phone records, witnesses, etc.; information from foreign inteligence services; documents and information recovered overseas by U.S. intelligence services; U.S. Customs; TSA; the ATF; and the U.S. Military (the units not stuck in Iraq)!!

Hmm.

Inexplicably, I suddenly feel safer - weird.

Reply To This — User Info — #2

Clearly... by rbdwiggins

Judge Taylor's decision in ACLU vs NSA is so transparent, an onion skin is more opaque and of greater substance.

A first-year con/law student would be mercilessly and summarily browbeaten into irrelevancy by his peers for exhibiting such an absolute lack of constitutional jurisprudence while simultaneously ignoring substantial jurisdictional and legal precedent to the contrary.

I expect a greater constitutional foundation and a much higher legal standard from a circuit court judge.

***

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

Reply To This — User Info — #3

Or from the Supremes... <nt> by mbecker908

-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Reply To This — User Info — #4

Our reputation should be one of reasoned, measured criticism by smagar

IMO Saul Anuzis overstated the real threat of Diggs Taylor's opinion. Redstate should be on the lookout against developing a repuation as a site that cries wolf. Wolf-criers are easier to dismiss in an argument. And, we have many arguments ahead which we need to win.

Yes, if Diggs Taylor's opinion is upheld by BOTH the US Circuit Court of Appeals and the SCOTUS, then we have a problem. And, if a runaway boulder comes crashing through my living room, so do I. Right now, however, I don't feel any immediate peril from either threat.

Diggs Taylor's opinion is so weak and stupid that we should stand by and watch her professional reputation sink under the crushing weight of that opinion's image. We shouldn't give her an opportunity to claim victimhood--and thus perhaps wiggle free--by overstating the case against her.

In the end, though, I'm just commenting on Mr. Anuzis' tactics. His goal is the same as ours.

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

Reply To This — User Info — #5

Redstate