Gee, do you suppose the wingnuts have anything to say about Judge Diggs Taylor’s rejection of the Dear Leader’s Terrorist Surveillance Program™? You know, the program that had absolutely nothing to do with the capture of the British terrorists? Cou…

Before term-limiting any Supreme Court Justices, you would do well to understand the founders reason for making the position lifetime. It is cleary to prevent justices from being swayed by majority pressures, precisely to avoid them becoming politicians that change their mind based on which way the wind blows. Read de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America. This is one of the best places to find information regarding the founders vision for our Republic as well as their reasoning behind the structure our government and its three branches.

RobertCSampson on August 19, 2006 at 12:02 AM

Bravo!

Look at it this way. Would you want to hire someone who you would be stuck with until they died no matter how good, or poor their work ethic was?

We may want to take a good look at the Legislative branch as well. Congress should have term limits – some of these people live in a bubble (ala Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden – to name a couple that have been around some time).

Absolutely!!

eliminate lifetime appointments, requiring judges to be re-confirmed on a periodic basis (e.g., like the Fed chairman).

We may want to take a good look at the Legislative branch as well. Congress should have term limits – some of these people live in a bubble (ala Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden – to name a couple that have been around some time). These Senators and Congressmembers surround themselves with staffers that only tell them what they want to hear. They have no concept of what the people want because they have lost touch with the people – it’s all about their own agenda.

- eliminate lifetime appointments, requiring judges to be re-confirmed on a periodic basis (e.g., like the Fed chairman).

- allow some sort of limited judicial review process by congress and the president which allows the overriding of judges on decisions like this. Yes, I know we have an amendment process that can theoretically overturn some judicial mischief, but that is simply not practical in situations like the one that started this thread.

- require judges to periodically face hearings in front of congress where they are required to publically defend their opinions.

I understand why the founders set up the system the way they did, wanting to insulate judges from politics. But it is painfully clear now that they are not insulated from politics. Instead, they are only insulated from facing the consequences of their decisions, and as such, they are abusing their power in ways the founders would never have anticipated.

Well you should. At least according to the liberals/dimwitocrats. With the decision yesterday by Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit, you should feel much better. No longer is it legal for the federal government to listen in on your phone calls to your …

ACLU, judges, politicians, leakers, NYT …. take heed.

They won’t – all they’ll do is blame our violations of civil liberties, lack of respect for other nation states, lack of patience, unilateralist views and xenophobic mentality on why we got hit.

There will probably be some that take it even further and accuse us of fabricating any more attacks as part of our ongoing efforts to continue a non-existent war and make the U.S. a police state (whose sole purpose is to violate civil liberties).

ACLU, judges, politicians, leakers, NYT …. take heed.

my new favorite female blogger

*sniffs*

I had to search Findlaw, Cornell, the US Supreme Court’s archives, and Lexis, but the caselaw is available. Each and every case I’ve cited above can be found on-line. You can view the text if you use google to find them.

I do not have the transcript or the briefs for the trial before Judge Taylor, so I can’t say with certainty whether the government cited of these cases, but I would be surprised if they weren’t.

You know as well as I do why the media has “blackholed” this information. It doesn’t advance their agenda if Bush is upheld by the courts.

Wow, that information was incredible…that is why I enjoy reading the comments of others…..

I assume that the cases you referred to are available to the public which leads me to question why this judge and the media act as if they do not exist?

I’m not an attorney, but I have more than some passing understanding of the relationship of federal judges, the district court of appleals, and the Supreme Court.

Judge Taylor’s decision is binding ONLY in her court. That is to say, no other federal judge is required to follow her ruling. Rarely are a district court trial judge’s opinions considered to apply beyond the plaintif and defendent named in the case. An identical case could be heard tomorrow by another judge and the ruling could go the other way.

The appellate court for the district hears appeals from the district courts and also adjudicates conflicting any decisions. That is the next step in this case. Usually 3 appellate judges hear an appeal. A decision of the appellate court (in this case the 6th US District) is binding upon all courts in the district. All district courts in the district are required to accept the ruling as precident. Appellate decisions may also be used as precident for cases in other US districts.

A decision of the appellate court can be reheard by all the appellate judges in the district if the losing party wishes the case to be decided “en banc” (which means by the entire bench, not just 3 judges).

An en banc decision can over rule the 3 judge one or uphold it. In either case, the decision is binding within the district, and may be cited as precedent in other districts.

The next court is the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the only court actually defined in the US Constitution. The lower courts and the US Districts were created by Congress under Article 3 as “inferior” courts.

In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Court gave itself the SOLE power to determine whether or not a law is Consitutional, while at the same time noting that the Executive Branch is specifically prohibited from enforcing laws that is unconstitution.

Specifically, the court held:

…a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

[As an interesting side note, up until shortly before the Civil War, the Supreme Court Justices rode a district court circuit and heard DISTRICT cases as trial judges.]

USSC decisions are binding on all other courts, both federal and state (thanks to the 14th Amendment).

Judge Taylor’s decision conflicts with an appellate court outside the 6th District in this issue, namely one heard by the FISA Court of Review: FISA Court of Review, In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001, which stronly upholds the President’s power to order warrantless wiretapping and searching. To wit:

The Truong court [United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 4th Cir. 1980], as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. … … We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.

Some of the other cases that the courts that have decided the issue are:

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
United States v. United States District Court (Keith) (1972).
United States v. [Cassius] Clay, 430 F.2d 165 (5th Cir. 1970).
United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418 (5th Cir. 1973).
United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974).
United States v. Humphrey (1978).
United States v. Buck, 548 F.2d 871 (9th Cir. 1977).
United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (1984).

All of these explicit cite the President’s power to obtain foreign intelligence without the necessity of obtaining a warrant.

As others have noted, Judge Taylor is simply ignoring the precedents.

I can not imagine Taylor’s decison NOT being overturned by the appellate court.

Given the egregious behavior of Judge Taylor in this and other cases, methinks it is time for the House and Senate to impeach and remove Judge Anna Diggs Taylor for cause: refusing to uphold the Constitutiion as determined by the US Supreme Court.

Se non vi fidate troppo di come stanno raccontando in Italia la sentenza di un giudice federale di Detroit, che ha dichiarato incostituzionale il “Terrorist Surveillance Program” voluto dall’amministrazione Bush dopo l’11 settembre, vi consiglio di…

I am way too angry to post on this story even when it broke yesterday, this is being appealed and anyone with a half brain would agree that this is a vital tool in tracking terrorists. A MUST, please put more ears on the phones A.S.A.P. I agree w ……..

Or was that too hopelessly reactionary? I’m not grokking the point of your post AP. It was a bit jumbled, and filled with references I didn’t get. Not sayin’ it’s your fault… I just don’t grok.

Yup, can’t get your policy voted in, just shop until you find an activist judge in some liberal’s pocket and give them the case. They will make sure you get your way.

When the next terrorist attack occurs, and undoubtedly sooner or later one will, I can only hope the target is this judges chambers or the left’s favorite hangouts. Let them cry no one was protecting them. Then, we can remind them of all the decisions they had like this.

See previous: NSA eavesdropping program ruled unconstitutionalIdeologue Leftist Judge Rules NSA Program Unconstitutional Patterico As I predicted last month, the NSA’s controversial surveillance program has been ruled unconstitutional by Judge Anna D…

Scroll for updates, injunction posted…44-page opinion posted ABC has it on its Breaking News bar. Detroit Free-Press has the story: A federal judge in Detroit has ruled that the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program violates the Co…