An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Quote of the day
Implicit in the term “national defense” is the notion of defending those values and ideas which set this nation apart.
Exactly what I have been arguing ever since the passage of the unintentionally ironically named USA PATRIOT Act.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
9 Responses to “Quote of the day”
I think that it’s terrible that we’ve gotten to the point where politicians feel they can say that telling the president he’s wrong is automatically un-patriotic and saying that the president isn’t subject to the same laws as the rest of us. Talk about destroying a village in order to save it…
Amen, Jack. Surprised you didn’t get more comments.
Agreed. Glenn Greenwald sums it up best for me – “It took real courage for Judge Diggs Taylor to issue this Opinion and Order — it is hard to overstate how much courage it took… One can only fathom the personal attacks that will be spewing forth against her.”
It took no ‘personal courage’. Any attacks against her will come from the right, and she hitched her wagon years ago to the left.
What it will do is make her a darling of the left, increase her visability, and increase the likelyhood of being rewarded if the political winds do indeed change to the Democratic party come election time.
It was a poorly written decision, rushed to be the first one to declare the wiretapping unconstititional, and has almost no hope of withstanding the appeals process (mainly due to the lack of standing issue).
I do agree with the decision philosophically, BTW, but this was a political move on her part, not a judicial one. Let’s avoid premature beatification.
It’s already well under way. I’m not one to hold the opinions stated in the comments section against a blog. But there’s a difference between the comments that make you say “Huh?” and the ones that send a chill down your spine.
Take the comments section on a Protein Wisdom post linked to here earlier, for instance:
“Proper response of the executive (paraphrasing President Jackson in re Chief Justice Marshall): Judge Diggs Taylor has made her decision; let her enforce it now if she can. ”
“There is an appropriate Shakespeare quote,”Kill all the lawyersâ€?. But, it would be wrong.
mojo, I’d love to see GWD tell the Court to get stuffed, in fact arrest the idiot judge for Sedition. It would, however, launch the moonbats into an impeachment frenzy.”
“Sure she orders it stopped….But the reality is who knows when it will be stopped. Never I say. That what SECRETS are for. When will the libs learn their quest is futile.”
It’s only going to go downhill from there, I’m sure. But no, it really didn’t take any personal courage for this 76-year-old woman to issue this ruling. I mean, she hitched her wagon to the Dems a long time ago!
I wonder if the “libs” will be there for her at 4 a.m. when she hears a noise she doesn’t recognize…
By that definition, it takes personal courage to be freaking George Bush – who’s been threatened so many times by DUmmies that it’s passee.
Hell, by that definition of ‘personal courage’, you’d have to be goddamn Braveheart just to buy a gun. I mean, after all, you’ve had Mayors in New York cross state lines just to hunt down legal dealers, and the BATFE ‘accidentally’ shoot legal gun owners.
You’re talking about an appointed Judge, with a bodyguard at her own place of work, pissing off people known to be lawful. Oh, scary. Next she’ll drive with her seatbelt off. That’ll make a statement with high risk!
Not even a well-written opinion. The first amendment stance would outlaw any wiretapping (including with a warrant), and when taken to touch, say, the second amendment, would make any paperwork, NICS, or licensing scheme completely unconstitutional, or and would even limit the police ability to ask if an individual is armed.
The fourth amendment stance doesn’t make sense. The 4th protects against infringements of “persons, houses, papers, and effects.” Eavesdropping was legal when authorized by the government back in the days of the founders, regardless of a warrant. But, hey, we all know the 2nd amendment covers machine guns since those are a logical extension from 18th century technology.
The whole damned opinion reads like a political editorial, and it will certainly be overruled ss one should.
So, go ahead, enjoy how your farmed judge ‘stuck it to the man’. I’m sure there’s no better way for the ACLU to spend your money.
This really needs to go before the Supreme Court. I don’t think this case has what it takes to make it there, but the courts are going to keep spinning this issue until there’s a showdown between the Whitehouse and FICA.
Make that FISA. Though I have even less love for FICA.
Hey Jack,
Judge Taylor…quoting Chief Justice Earl Warren’s words in a 1967 ruling: “Implicit in the term ‘national defense’ is the notion of defending those values and ideas which set this nation apart.â€?
If I quote someone really smart will you attribute the quote to me and make me look smarter than I really am, too?
By the way, Chief Justice Earl Warren also said this:
“The only reason that there has been no sabotage or espionage on the part of Japanese-Americans is that they are waiting for the right moment to strike.” Testimony before Congress on the Internment of people of Japanese Ancestry (1941)
Though he did later regret his support of Japanese-American interrment.