In "Judges, Politics, and Security: The awful NSA decision proves, once again, that they don’t mix" in National Review, Andrew C. McCarthy explains what is so wrong with Judge Taylor's decision on wiretapping:
It would be wrong and regrettable, but it is certainly conceivable that the Supreme Court will eventually find the Bush administration’s NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program unconstitutional. One thing is certain, though. Such a ruling by the high Court will not rely on the handiwork of Michigan federal district judge Anna Diggs Taylor. Her effort yesterday to invalidate the program is a transparently political screed.Judge Taylor last garnered national attention in 2002 when she was caught trying to rig the outcome of an affirmative-action case. Now, this relic of the Jimmy Carter twilight has fixed her gaze on a war against ruthless enemies who have already attacked the United States massively, serially and globally — an enemy whose leadership is unabashed in telling us, repeatedly, that its devout mission is an exponentially more devastating reprise of 9/11’s carnage.
And what does this jurist see? What she calls “the War on Terror of this administration” — not of the American people, but of George W. Bush — which “[p]redictably” seeks to evade judicial review.
Yes, here we have the thematic history of the administration that has fought to defeat jihadists … as told by a vestige of the administration that first empowered jihadists.
Read it all.
this inept Taylor's doing on this matter will be taken down by the higher courts. she only got where she is due to her gender and race. she is grandstanding at the peril of the safety of the US.\
now do you feel safer with this Taylor?
There's a great irony here. Giving one's allegiance to a subgroup rather than to one's whole nation, in the full sense of preferring the subgroup's advantage to the nation's survival, was once called "particularism." Taylor obviously suffers from this vice, as do many Democrats, leftists, and Muslims everywhere.
Term limits for federal judges. 10 years and you are out, or at least a reconfirmation in the House, not the plutocratic Senate that put them there in the first place.
Probably would need an Amendment. Probably just wishful thinking. God help us.