From: "Robert Comer" 

Of course she's biased, she's a judge, but maybe by facts and not opinions.

The King George reference had nothing to do with Bush, it was King George III.

And there's a no, nada, nothing, about "Bush's war"  me thinks
your bias and what you believe others are saying is showing a LOT more than
anything else. (Bush is only mentioned twice, and only for quote Bush said
that he had the power to do what he did.)

--
Bob Comer



"Mark"  wrote in message
news:44e61bf5{at}w3.nls.net...
> Matters not Rich, she's clearly biased.
>
> "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=OWVlOGNiZmIyMmZkYTg2OGFiYzM3ZGU4Nzc0
MjFjNzQ=
>>>>>
>>>>> "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