July 6, 2007
ACLU Left "Standing" Out in the Cold (and a Game of Pin the Party on the Judge!)
In a wonderful ruling today out of the Sixth Circus, the ACLU's gaggle of the perpeturally aggrieved was told to pack up their federal lawsuit against the NSA al-Qaeda intercept program; the appellate court held that none of them has standing -- meaning none could show that he, personally, was surveilled by the NSA.
The case, American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency, was appealed by the Bush administration after federal Motown Judge Anna Katherine Johnston Diggs Taylor ruled in August that the program was unconstitutional and must immediately be ended; she magnanimously agreed to stay her ruling pending appeal... provided that appeal commenced in one week.
In October, the Sixth Circuit panel issued its own (unanimous) stay. And then today, it announced the 2-1 decision voiding the suit. (In an irritating but understandable act of judicial restraint, the court, once having found a lack of standing, did not reach the merits of the case.)
So it's time now to play -- pin the party on the judge! See if you can guess which president appointed which judge...
We have district-court Judge Anna Katherine Johnston Diggs Taylor and appellate court Judge Ronald Lee Gilman ruling for the ACLU; and appellate court Judges Alice M. Batchelder and Julia Smith Gibbons ruling against the ACLU.
I'm sure you're already way ahead of me, so here is the answer:
- Anna Katherine Johnston Diggs Taylor: appointed by Jimmy Carter in 1979;
- Ronald Lee Gilman: appointed by Bill Clinton in 1997;
- Alice M. Batchelder: appointed to the district-court bench by Ronald Reagan in 1985, elevated to the appellate court by George H.W. Bush in 1991;
- Julia Smith Gibbons: appointed to the district-court bench by Ronald Reagan in 1983, elevated to the appellate court by George W. Bush in 2001.
So for anyone who is still unclear about the monumental importance of presidential judicial nominations...
This isn't the end of the issue; there are other suits, and no circus court has yet ruled on the merits of this case or any of the others:
A number of other challenges to the program have been consolidated before a federal judge in San Francisco, and the federal appeals court in California, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, will hear an appeal from one of the judge’s preliminary rulings next month.
Some plaintiffs in that case contend that they can prove standing even under the Sixth Circuit majority’s analysis. Those plaintiffs, an Islamic charity and two of its lawyers, say they have seen a classified document confirming that their communications were actually intercepted.
I'm not sure any of these plaintiffs will be found to have standing, even those who claim they've "seen" evidence, unless they can produce that evidence in court (which -- reading between the lines -- it appears they cannot). Regardless, I still have confidence that when the Supreme Court finally rules on those merits, they will find that the president and Commander in Chief has plenary authority to order survillance of enemy combatants.
Unless, of course, flibbertgibbit Justice Anthony Kennedy has another bad robe day.
Hatched by Dafydd on this day, July 6, 2007, at the time of 1:53 PM
TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/2231
The following hissed in response by: Seaberry
Goes to show how important Judges are. Power Line points to a Hugh Hewitt post today that mentions 3 things that are most important to the GOP base:
(1) victory in the war, (2) border security, and (3) aggressive support of the president's judicial nominees.
The following hissed in response by: Big D
Ever notice something? When judges get commonly referred to by complicated middle names and surnames they are almost invariably liberal. For example, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and John Paul Stevens, Anna Katherine Johnston Diggs Taylor, Ronald Lee Gilman, etc. vs, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Alice M. Batchelder.
I think it has to do with the pomposity of the individual. It is a way of saying "Lord high magisterial judginess" without actually having to say it. And liberals, despite the "man of the people" image they pretend to, much more commonly engage in this name inflation.
Romans used to do this all the time - the more important you were, the longer and more pompous your name became.
I remember when Hillary Clinton suddenly became Hillary Rodham Clinton after the 2000 election. It was so jarring. Funny how Laura Bush is still Laura Bush, seven years down the road.
Anyone remember off the top of your head what Ronald Reagan's middle name was? How about George Bush? Gerald Ford? Ike? Yet who doesn't know that it was John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Lyndon Baines Johnson, or William Jefferson Clinton?
Is it just me? Anyone else notice this?
There are a few exceptions (Richard M. Nixon and Jimmy Carter come to mind), but it is surprisingly accurate.
The following hissed in response by: Seaberry
I remember when Hillary Clinton suddenly became Hillary Rodham Clinton after the 2000 election.
I think she's back to using "Hillary Clinton" now, since finding out that she had a fight on her hands to even gain the Dem nomination. -wink-
The following hissed in response by: Terrye
I think the GOP base needs to keep this in mind when they demonize their own leadership for not placing land mines on the Mexican border.
Post a comment
Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)
© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved