From: "Mark" 

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=OWVlOGNiZmIyMmZkYTg2OGFiYzM3ZGU4Nzc0MjF
jNzQ=
>>
>> "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