Captains Quarters: "The more people read of the opinion by Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruling against the government in the NSA's terrorist surveillance program, the less impressed even the program's opponents become. Adam Liptak reports in the New York Times -- whose editorial board hailed Taylor's jurisprudence -- that legal analysts have little support for Taylor's reasoning...
"It brings up an interesting question, one raised by Patterico yesterday. Judicial diktats like this one have the same effect as any unconstitutional efforts by the executive or by Congress, and all that is left is partisan bickering over whether the ends justified the means. Taylor's weightless opinion reduces itself to a basic because I said so, which is exactly the same impulse for which she excoriates the Bush administration in her decision. The only saving grace is that Taylor doesn't get the last word, and in this case one can hardly say that she had the first word, either.
"Taylor's lack of rigor in examining the legal arguments presented in this case will force the appellate court into a position it usually avoids -- being the finder of fact. It now must review the evidence and listen to all the legal arguments, which must be made a second time, in order to straighten out the mess that Taylor made of her responsibility to give all sides a fair hearing. Liptak's sources believe that the appeals will uphold the decision while completely rejecting the opinion Taylor issued in delivering it. I predict that the appellate court will throw the entire case out for lack of standing. We will all know soon enough, but in the meantime, the NSA continues to operate its program under a stay issued by the Sixth District appellate court."
"2008 pres"
9:56:27 AM 
|
