From: "Mark" 

I already provided critiques of her decision earlier in the thread Bob,
there are lots more (including the WaPo) but what's the point of arguing
about it? I believe it should be overturned, you believe it shouldn't --
there is no middle ground to argue about  I don't like the idea of
a bunch of liberals trying to blind us, cut off our hands, and muffle our
ears. I see no reason why I should die because they are paranoid that the
government might find out they like Jif over Skippy.

"Robert Comer"  wrote in message
news:44e62779{at}w3.nls.net...
>> 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=OWVlOGNiZmIyMmZkYTg2OGFiYzM3ZGU4N
zc0MjFjNzQ=
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "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