From: "Rich Gauszka" 

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=OWVlOGNiZmIyMmZkYTg2OGFiYzM3ZGU4Nzc0Mj
FjNzQ=
>>>
>>> "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