"Judge Anna Diggs Taylor has made a forceful statement in support of liberty and against unbridled executive power today. In her opinion in ACLU v. NSA she holds:The Government appears to argue here that, pursuant to the penumbra of Constitutional language in Article II, and particularly because the President is designated Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, he has been granted the inherent power to violate not only the laws of the Congress but the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, itself. We must first note that the Office of the Chief Executive has itself been created, with its powers, by the Constitution. There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all 'inherent powers' must derive from that Constitution.
GW must be saying 'ouch.'"
The Freepers are up in arms, of course, but in Left Blogostan the trolls are in full rout. You see, the injunction itself was stated in partcularly robust terms. "Bitchslapping" comes to mind.
Judge Anna Diggs Taylor’s opinion HERE. She writes:
In this case, the President has acted, undisputedly, as FISA forbids. FISA is the expressed statutory policy of our Congress. The presidential power, therefore, was exercised at its lowest ebb and cannot be sustained.
Text of the Injunction.
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants, its agents, employees, representatives, and any other persons or entities in active concert or participation with Defendants, are permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly utilizing the Terrorist Surveillance Program (hereinafter “TSP”) in any way, including, but not limited to, conducting warrantless wiretaps of telephone and internet communications, in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (hereinafter “FISA”) and Title III;
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DECLARED that the TSP violates the Separation of Powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA and Title III;
“IT IS ALSO ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiffs’ data-mining claim and is DENIED regarding Plaintiffs’ remaining claims;
“IT IS ALSO ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED in its entirety.
“IT IS SO ORDERED.”
But when a judge "bitchslaps" someone, they tend to be very, very sure of the ground on which they stand. In this case, the grounds were irrefutable and the defense presented by the admistration was utterly pathetic.
They tried to say that they could have proven their case - but for concerns of National Security.
I genuinly pity the poor creature they sent in to say that to a sitting judge.
tag: activist judges, NSA, ethics, george w. bush, dangerous president, miserable failure, constitution, constitutional, unitary executive, terrorism, privacy, data theft, data mining, warrentless wiretapping