From: "Mark" 

It's not something worth arguing over, she'll be overturned.

"Robert Comer"  wrote in message
news:44e62084$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> 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=OWVlOGNiZmIyMmZkYTg2OGFiYzM3ZGU4Nzc
0MjFjNzQ=
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "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