pudge's Journal: Wiretapping Ruling

I don't see this ruling as important. It's phase one.

Predictably, the ruling was appealed, and the ruling is stayed pending appeal. That means the program continues.

There is only one court that matters in this case, and it's the Supreme Court. Nothing any judge says in the meantime -- for or against the wiretapping program -- really matters.

I will say that I find the judge's language striking. She says "the president of the United States ... has undisputedly violated the Fourth [Amendment] in failing to procure judicial orders." But many judges -- some of them higher up than she is -- have disputed precisely this. So I don't know where she gets off saying that, and it makes me question her overall judgment.

Sort of what I figured

[mgessner]

I don't see this as anything more than a Carter appointee trying to stick it to the Bush administration.

And yes, SCOTUS is the only court that really matters in something like this.

Limbaugh brought to light some things this judge has done in the past, and they're predictably far, far left.

Thank you, Jimmy Carter.

I guess this is more proof that the ACLU needs to go...

Re:

[cascadefx]

I don't see this as anything more than a Carter appointee trying to stick it to the Bush administration.

Processing...

And yes, SCOTUS is the only court that really matters in something like this.

Processing...

Limbaugh brought to light some things this judge has done in the past, and they're predictably far, far left.

Abort. Limbaugh invoked. Begin garbage dump.

Re:

[pudge]

I have no idea what Rush said, but I do know that SCOTUS is all that matters here, and judging from this judge's overstatements, I tend to think she's being more than a bit partisan.

She said, "There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution." I agree with that, but I wonder if she has supported any other unenumerated powers of the federal government, including those of Congress ...

Her arguments are not very persuasive to me. But it doesn't really matter in the end, s

Re:

[cascadefx]

As soon as Rush, Anne, or Sean are invoked, I tune out.

Simple as that. Not arguing the rest of it.

I agree that we'll see what happens when it goes to the Supreme Court. Bush will probably get a victory because he has stacked the court in his favor as is his perogative as President.

Re:

[cascadefx]

How cute! You're a priceless little Rush Bunny. Now skip along back to Uncle Rush like a good little one...

Re:

[pudge]

OK, both of you knock it off. Keep your personal attacks out of mah journal.

Although cascadefx, I do find it funny you wrote this reply to yourself instead of him ... :-)

Re:

[cascadefx]

I'll stop, but I will add that I only made a personal response to his personal attack.

My initial response was about the content of invoking Rush. I guess that touched a nerve, but it wasn't personal.

In effect, I am using the "he started it" defense.

Re:

[pudge]

I know he did it first. My bad for not nipping it in the bud sooner. I guess I just expected more from you. ;-)

But maybe I shouldn't have, since you are obviously a nonthinking person, since you hate Rush. ;-)

Re:

[cascadefx]

And I found that funny too.

Cuz you know how I love me some Rush (great power trio).

Re:

[mgessner]

That's ridiculous.

Why do you tune out? Too much depth for you?

Actually, it makes sense.

[Timex]

There's a judicial procedure in place (sorry, I forgot the name of it... "FISA Court"? Sounds something like that...) where the Feds can go to this court, get clearance to do a wire tap (or whatever), and they have something like 72 hours to come back and get a proper warrant for what they just did.

The point about all this is "checks and balances". Bush, by pushing his plan to do wiretaps-at-will, is trying to circumvent that.

Two points that I'll make, then that's it from me:

1. What Bush is trying to ge

Re:

[pudge]

The point about all this is "checks and balances". Bush, by pushing his plan to do wiretaps-at-will, is trying to circumvent that.

That's beside the real point here, which is whether the Congress has the legal right to require Bush to go through the FISA court in such cases. You can't just say "checks and balances!!!" or "it's the law!!!" You have to look to the Constitution.

I'm not saying that Bush does have this authority under the Constitution, but a lot of people smarter than me say he does, including

Re:

[Timex]

I'm not saying that Bush does have this authority under the Constitution, but a lot of people smarter than me say he does, including judges, lawyers, and legislators.

The only reason why I'm not freaking out over this comment is because it's entirely possible that the Founding Fathers, when the powers of the Presidency were encoded, didn't anticipate the level of invasion that could (or would) come to pass. By this, I mean that if the president can conduct investigations at will, without any limitations, th

Re:

[pudge]

By this, I mean that if the president can conduct investigations at will, without any limitations, then the president is capable of the sort of activity that one might attribute to the Gestapo.

I think you're missing the fact that this power -- and the examples I am referencing that seem to support it -- is in regard to our borders, seeing what is going in and out of our country, which is not what one thinks of in re the Gestapo, where one is concerned about the police coming into their homes.

It was my under