Redstate

By kowalski Comments (0) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

[With apologies to Academic Elephant and
John Vernon as Dean Wormer]

Well, the analysis of Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's decision about the legality and constitutionality of the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program is rolling in, and it doesn't look good for the ruling or for the Judge's legal reasoning, not to mention her motives. Legal experts across the political spectrum are increasingly agreeing with RedState's own analysis, written by the Baseball Crank and carried further in the comments.

Here are a few excerpts from this morning's New York Times: "Experts Fault Reasoning on Surveillance Decision"

They said the opinion overlooked important precedents, failed to engage the government’s major arguments, used circular reasoning, substituted passion for analysis and did not even offer the best reasons for its own conclusions.

Discomfort with the quality of the decision is almost universal..."
...
“It’s just a few pages of general ruminations about the Fourth Amendment, much of it incomplete and some of it simply incorrect,” [said] Orin S. Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University...

I urge you to read the rest of the article at the Times because it advances several interesting hypotheses to explain the jaw-dropping shoddiness and general incompetence reflected in this ruling. Most interesting to me is Cass Sunstein's prediction that the plaintiffs will still win their case on appeal -- but *not because of the arguments* advanced in the ruling -- because it strikes my legally-untrained mind as a legal version of the "count the votes again until you get the result you want" election tactic. But that's just me.

Reading between the lines of the article just a little bit, it becomes clear that this ruling has damaged the reputation of the federal judiciary and highlighted just how deeply this judge's reasoning was invested, nay, prejudiced in favor of producing an outcome favorable to the New York Times, the ACLU, and other opponents of the NSA/TSP program, mostly for publicity purposes.

But the Times itself sums it up best:

“Justice Stevens was criticized for not including sound bites and sweeping constitutional interpretation,” Mr. Lederman said. Judge Taylor’s decision, by contrast, he said, “was meant for headlines.”

It frightens me that Federal judges like Diggs Taylor, after having been judge-shopped by the ACLU, can produce rulings that will impact my ability to survive and the ability of our government to protect my family -- so that the ACLU and the Times can have some cheap publicity thrills.

Need I say it? Thanx, Jimmy!

[UPDATE: I also encourage our resident legal eagles (and even our resident legal sparrows) to visit Volokh and read their excellent commentary on this ruling.]