From: "Robert Comer" 

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

So tell me a valid reason why you think that?  I'm curious...

I wouldn't be surprised either, but I expect that in the end her ruling (or
a similar one by someone up higher) will stand.

--
Bob Comer





"Mark"  wrote in message
news:44e62385$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> 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=OWVlOGNiZmIyMmZkYTg2OGFiYzM3ZGU4Nz
c0MjFjNzQ=
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "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