From: "Robert G Lewis" 

Gee talking about some of the grievances that led to the constitution. How
patently unfair.


"Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
news:44e619c4$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Your King George reference is on Page 34 of the PDF and it's a reference
> to the constitution and separation of powers
>
> http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pdf/aclunsa.pdf
>
>
> "Mark"  wrote in message
news:44e6167f{at}w3.nls.net...
>>I know there are other opinions out there Rich, but when she sticks in the
>>"King George" "Bush's War" crapola, she loses
all credibility with me, as
>>she should with all. It's one thing for Kennedy, Feingold, Kos, Lamont to
>>do their partisan shuffle with ridiculous statements like that, it's quite
>>another for a federal judge.
>>
>> She'll be overturned, of that there is no doubt.
>>
>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
>> news:44e60bab$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> yet other opinions seem to favor Judge Taylor
>>>
>>> http://blogher.org/node/9488
>>>
>>> Law BlogHers reacted quickly to the ruling. "We'll see
how that holds
>>> up," said Ann Althouse. In the past, she has suggested that
>>> Congressional objections to the program were more posturing than
>>> principle. On the other hand, Echidne offered evidence that the
>>> program's defenders would accuse the judge of coddling terrorists. Susie
>>> Madrak had a one-word description for people who think that way:
>>> "morons".
>>>
>>> Reactions from journalism BlogHers were also strong. Firedoglake noted
>>> that that this was the second judicial ruling to reject the Bush
>>> administration's legal argument, and recommended Glenn Greenwald's
>>> analysis. And Joy Reid didn't mince words. Calling Judge
Taylor, "Our
>>> Lady of the Constitution, she said,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Mark"  wrote in message
news:44e60629{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote
in message
>>>> news:44e4cd04$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>> Hey a little thing like violating the constitution 
never stopped the
>>>>> Bushies before. Hopefully the ruling will survive appeal
>>>>
>>>> No chance that mish mosh of partisanship will pass muster on appeal.
>>>> She comes across like a flake:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008816
>>>> "So we suppose a kind of congratulations are due to
federal Judge Anna
>>>> Diggs Taylor, who won her 10 minutes of fame yesterday for declaring
>>>> that President Bush had taken upon himself "the
inherent power to
>>>> violate not only the laws of the Congress but the First and Fourth
>>>> Amendments of the Constitution, itself." Oh, and by
the way, the Jimmy
>>>> Carter appointee also avers that "there are no
hereditary Kings in
>>>> America." In case you hadn't heard. ... early in the
decision, Judge
>>>> Taylor refers with apparent derision to "the war on
terror of this
>>>> Administration.""
>>>>
>>>> and here:
>>>>
>>>>
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWVlOGNiZmIyMmZkYTg2OGFiYzM3ZGU4Nzc0M
jFjNzQ=
>>>>
>>>> "Much will be said about this opinion in the coming
days. I'll start
>>>> with this: I wouldn't accept this utterly unsupported,
constitutionally
>>>> and logically bankrupt collection of musings from a first-year law
>>>> student, much less a new lawyer at my firm. Why not?
Herewith, a start
>>>> at a very long list of what's wrong with Judge Taylor's
opinion."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5