From: "Robert Comer" 

>I already provided critiques of her decision earlier in the thread Bob,

And they didn't jive with the document to me...

> there are lots more (including the WaPo) but what's the point of arguing
> about it?

You post here it's fair game for argument. 

>I believe it should be overturned, you believe it shouldn't

Yep, I just can't past first amendment rights on this one. (more than one,
search and seizure, free speech, ...)  And you think the president has the
power to do whatever he feels like in the name of fighting terror when it
comes to dealing with everyone (even U.S. citizens.)

Anyway, it's a very deep argument that needs to be healed -- we aren't the
only two arguing either side and there is no middle ground for anyone. 
It's ripping our society apart and it's only going to get worse for the
next 2 years.

>I don't like the idea of a bunch of liberals trying to blind us, cut off
>our hands, and muffle our ears.

And I don't like a bunch of so called conservatives giving away everyone's
rights. (I'll no longer call republican's conservatives, they left that a
LONG time ago)

>I see no reason why I should die because they are paranoid that the
>government might find out they like Jif over Skippy.

And I see no reason to give away my rights so you can feel warm fuzzies
about faux protection from the crazies.

All that said, I'm sorry for the tone of my posts today, I've got one heck
of a migraine headache so my inhibitions are suffering...

--
Bob Comer





"Mark"  wrote in message
news:44e62b17$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>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=OWVlOGNiZmIyMmZkYTg2OGFiYzM3ZGU4
Nzc0MjFjNzQ=
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "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