Thursday, August 17, 2006

Anna Diggs Taylor


Anna Diggs Taylor

As we approach the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks that murdered nearly three thousand men, women, and children, Anna Diggs Taylor decided to become a footnote in American history.

She, a Jimmy Carter appointee, forever will have the dubious distinction of being the first judge to rule that a government program to get terrorists before they get to us is unconstitutional.

Anna Diggs Taylor -- hero to terrorists and Leftists.



DETROIT (AP) -- A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

"Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution," Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves secretly listening to conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries.

The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.

The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration had already publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule on the case.

"By holding that even the president is not above the law, the court has done its duty," said Ann Beeson, the ACLU's associate legal director and the lead attorney for the plaintiffs.

The NSA's terrorist surveillance program is not about placing President Bush above the law.

It's about preventing horrors like we witnessed on 9/11.

It's so there won't be more 911 calls of panicked, helpless people begging for assistance, fearing and knowing that they are going to die.

Beeson and her ACLU buddies want to twist the NSA program into a sinister power grab by the Bush administration. It's sick.

As Judge Diggs Taylor, Ann Beeson, Russ Feingold, and like-minded individuals attempt to thwart our government's efforts to keep us safe and SAVE LIVES, no doubt enemies of freedom and peace like Osama bin Laden, Hassan Nasrallah, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Bashar Assad are pleased to have their assistance.

I assume that the government will do as Beeson predicts, "appeal the wiretapping ruling and request that the order to halt the program be postponed while the case makes its way through the system."

That would be a victory for us and a defeat for the American Left and the terrorists.

_________________________________

Anna Diggs Taylor

Title: U.S. district judge, Detroit

Age: 73

Background: In 1979, she became the first black woman to be appointed as a federal district judge in Michigan. She was appointed by President Jimmy Carter. Before that, she was a lawyer, civil rights worker, county and federal prosecutor, City of Detroit staff lawyer and congressional office manager.

Family: She has two adult children and is married to S. Martin Taylor, former director of the Michigan Department of Labor and former vice president of Detroit Edison. He also is a University of Michigan regent.

News: Taylor ruled Thursday that the Bush administration's controversial National Security Agency domestic spying program is unconstitutional. The landmark ruling, according to legal experts, is likely to be overturned on appeal.

4 comments:

Mary said...

Taylor's idiotic ruling will be struck down.

It's bad law, typical of activist judges.

If you love the Constitution, then you should be horrified that someone like Taylor has decided to disregard it.

The NSA program is constitutional. Bush is merely exercising the powers granted to him in the Constitution.

I'm not trading ANY of my constitutional rights. Zero. I don't make calls overseas to terrorists and no terrorists call me.

And why bring up the Second Amendment? It's particularly strange that you make the case about so much carnage resulting from it, yet you say you don't want to lose the right to own guns.

It's odd the you have a Scalia-esque originalist interpretation of the Constitution regarding the Second Amendment, but yet you applaud an activist judge taking constitutionally-endowed powers from the commander-in-chief.

Furthermore, your premise that there would be no spousal or other gun violence if guns were outlawed is flawed. Tossing out the Second Amendment wouldn't prevent gun deaths.

Your arguments are remarkably inconsistent.

I'm not giving up any of my rights. To the contrary, I want things such as the NSA intercept program to protect me and my rights.

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Way to go, Mary.

Legal scholars on both sides of the aisle are calling the ruling sloppy.

And it amazes me that a US Army vet can allow himself to buy into the scaremongering that our Constitutional rights are being taken away from us by "King George".

President Bush has done nothing "over-reaching" or "unprecedented" in terms of exercising his full Constitutional rights as President, that previous Presidents have not done.

Read Geoffrey R. Stone's 2004 book "Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism."

Here's what a panel of former Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges said back in late March to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee:

a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president's constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order.

Mary said...

The ACLU went "forum shopping" and thought Taylor would deliver.

The ACLU was right.

Eventually, Taylor's ruling will be overturned and all the drooling Dems (Feingold, Feinstein, Leahy, etc.) touting this supposed victory will look like idiots.

And I agree with your assessment, WS.

Obviously, "Repack rider" is a rather different sort of U.S. Army vet.

Mary said...

Game over, "repack rider."