‘The public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution’

August 17, 2006

I think it’s safe to say the far-right will really not like today’s federal court ruling on the president’s warrantless-search program. For example, the conclusion to U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor’s ruling quotes (.pdf) former Chief Justice Earl Warren:

“Implicit in the term ‘national defense’ is the notion of defending those values and ideas which set this nation apart. . . . It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of . . . those liberties . . . which make the defense of the nation worthwhile.”

That, of course, is pre-9/11 thinking at its most obvious.

Glenn Greenwald, naturally, has a very thorough rundown of the ruling, but these are the points that struck me as the most significant:

[T]he court ruled — rather emphatically and without much doubt — that warrantless eavesdropping violates the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures (generally speaking, searches undertaken in the absence of a probable cause warrant). […]

[T]he court ruled independently — again, without all that much reasoning — that the NSA program violates the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights, apparently because it chills (deters) their free expression. Since they know the Government can eavesdrop without warrants on conversations of those groups and individuals deemed “subversive,” the program abridges free expression in a way that the First Amendment prohibits. […]

Finally, and really quite extraordinarily, the court (a) declared the NSA program to be in violation of FISA, the First Amendment and Fourth Amendment and (b) issued a permanent injunction enjoining the Bush administration from continuing to eavesdrop in violation of FISA.

Of course, we can now begin the countdown to the mother of all judicial pushbacks towards Taylor and the federal judiciary. Indeed, to a limited extent, it’s already begun.

Lopez over at NRO called this a “terrorist-friendly ruling” … ?

So, for her, terrorists love the Consitution?

The more I try to understand the thought processes of the right, the less I actually do.

  • Ya Diggs might want to hire some security and get her ride bullet-proofed, the nuts are going to go fricken bananas and call for her head on a plate.

    She cleary states that Bush broke the law, when will he be arrested ??

  • I’m also guilty of pre 9/11 thinking.

    Specifically, I go back to 1776 (the Declaration of Independence) and 1789? (the Constitutional Convention).

  • Since I’ve seen some of my more amusing comments echoed after time (the prayer for the Rapture, for instance) I’ll repeat this one.

    General Michael V. Hayden’s Warrantless Wiretap Program is unconstitutional because it is ineffective. That is, out of thousands of tips provided to the FBI by the NSA, only a handful have produced actionable information, and the was duplicative of investigations already going by the FBI. With a success rate less than 1 percent, the wiretaps are not reasonable. Thus they can not be considered grounds for a warrant. Thus they are not consitutional.

    Simple.

  • Along the lines of Unholy Moses above, it really is interesting to see how the clowns on the right flip and flop on such issues. They will argue “original intent” and “no activist judges” and to remove/unfund/kill all activist judges out of one side of their mouths.then when a judge actually renders a decision that looks at the specific terms of the Constitution, comparing its various terms, and concludes that certain specific terms overrule the vagueries of the position taken by this administration, vagueries that can only be explained or supported through an expanded reading (read: not contained in specific Constitutional language) of some of the Constitution’s terms, thereby upholding the specific terms of the Constitution, they go apoplectic and claim the judge is out of line. Twankers, each and every one of them. Guess their version of the Constitution changes depending solely upon who sits at the head of the executive branch.

  • I just caught a couple of things of interest on CNN. First, Jeff Toobin (the legal anaylist) said that he thought there was a very good chance that the Supreme Court would refuse to hear the appeal, based on the merits of the case. In other words, he said, the justices may well say it’s congress’ responsibility to deal with it.

    The other interesting thing was that they went directly to Jack Cafferty, who raved — and I mean RAVED — for longer than usual that the president has broken the law and violated his oath of office, and that somebody (the judge) has finally said what has needed saying. It was good.

    Cafferty also made the good point that wireless wiretapping was going on long ago, which is WHY the FISA law was created. As I said, he was vehement.

  • This is already being presented as “a victory for terrorists.”

    Since 9/11 we’ve been repeatedly told that terrorists “hate us for our freedom.”

    So how is a reaffirmation of that freedom a victory for those who hate us for it?

    Just asking….

  • I find it extremely curious, whenever these tinpot tyrants of the Reich blogosphere start screaming for people’s heads—all because of “pre-9/11 thinking”—that not a single one of them remembers that the election of Bush/Cheney was “also” pre-9/11 thinking. So—are the shrill little squeaks of the Reich actually suggesting that Gore should be President?

    This may well be the one item that Herr Bush never anticipated. He can’t negate, nullify, or otherwise dilute a court ruling with his silly little post-scripts. He can’t oust a sitting federal judge in a trumped-up election. He can’t counter them with acts of Congress; the judges can simply declare any actions applied to be “unconstitutional.”

    On the other hand, what is there to prevent a sitting President who, by refusing to comply with orders from the bench, from being charged with contempt—and summarily jailed for the offense? I’m not seeing anything in the federal statutes that would specifically prevent this from happening….

  • If you really want to be entertained, go read the comments on the article linked to at anklebiter. Granted, there are a few people on the left that are ridiculous, but its fun to see them try and spin this into activism. A lot of use of the standard Repub. talking points.

    • Comments are closed.