Monday, 08 January 2007
 

Michelle Again in the Crosshairs
Contributed by George Mellinger

Michelle Malkin, OWD's favorite poster girl, is under attack again from another old pest. Not the CAIR and Jihadist fanatics we expect. This one is a tenured traitor professor at the University of North Carolina Law School, Eric Muller, who accuses her of racism against Muslims because she supports profiling. Michelle has had public dealings with him before:

First, the matter of Malkin: On September 28, 2006, Muller tried to score points off (or possibly in his own mind, with) Michelle by posting a picture of her on his IsThatLegal? blog in a bikini.

The image he had discovered, however, was an obvious Photoshopping of the head of the petite Michelle onto a very tall woman's body. She laughed:

"Yup, and for the record (sorry to disappoint the gentlemen), I haven't worn a bikini since I had my two kids."

Go read the full story here. I think Michelle is in a duel of wits with an unarmed opponent.

I wonder whether Eric Muller thinks it is racist for neighboring district attorney Mike Nifong to withhold exculpatory evidence in order to convict some White Duke lacrosse players of a rape that was never committed?

-Rurik

Contributed by George Mellinger on January 8, 2007 at 10:29 AM in Dem Dumbness, George Mellinger, Islamism Delenda Est, Judicial Stupidity | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Thursday, 24 August 2006
 

NYT: A Matter of Appearances
Contributed by Bill Faith

When Judge Anna Diggs Taylor was given the job of deciding whether the Bush administration’s wiretapping program was unconstitutional, she certainly understood that she would be ruling on one of the most politically charged cases in recent history. So it would have been prudent for her to disclose any activity that might conceivably raise questions about her ability to be impartial. Regrettably, it was left to a conservative group, Judicial Watch, to point out her role as a trustee to a foundation that had given grants to a branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, a plaintiff in the case.

[Read on. H/T: Allahpundit]

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 24, 2006 at 04:35 AM in Bill Faith, Judicial Stupidity | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Tuesday, 22 August 2006
 

Judge Taylor Participated In Donation To ACLU
Contributed by Bill Faith

Judge Taylor Participated In $45,000 Donation To The ACLU

A conflict of interest is coming to light in Judge Taylor’s past. You will recall that Judge Taylor is the one who wrote the idiotic opinion siding with the ACLU over the NSA wiretap case. Now Judicial Watch has found that she help make a $45,000 donation to the ACLU:

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and judicial abuse, announced today that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who last week ruled the government’s warrantless wiretapping program unconstitutional, serves as a Secretary and Trustee for a foundation that donated funds to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan, a plaintiff in the case ACLU et al. v. National Security Agency. Judicial Watch discovered the potential conflict of interest after reviewing Judge Diggs Taylor’s financial disclosure statements, available on Judicial Watch’s Internet Site.

[...]

[Read on.]

***

Allahpundit has more here, as does Jay at Stop The ACLU here.

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 22, 2006 at 04:42 PM in Bill Faith, Islamism Delenda Est, Judicial Stupidity | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Monday, 21 August 2006
 

A judicial hit piece
Contributed by Bill Faith

There is poor reasoning, and then there is head-spinningly, jaw-droppingly poor reasoning. U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's angry 44-page ruling against NSA terrorism surveillance is the latter, and constitutes little more than a political stunt, with ever-so-helpful declarations like "There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution." The American Civil Liberties Union forum-shopped this lawsuit, handed it to a reliably left-liberal Jimmy Carter appointee in Detroit and got its desired result. It probably didn't count on the extreme intellectual embarrassment of Judge Diggs Taylor's opinion, however, which is now being noted by left and right alike.

[Read on.]

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 21, 2006 at 12:37 AM in 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, Bill Faith, Islamism Delenda Est, Judicial Stupidity | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Saturday, 19 August 2006
 

Two Demagogues Self-Destruct
Contributed by Bill Faith

In the wake of the recent NSA surveillance ruling by judge Anna Diggs Taylor, two noteworthy and purportedly professional sources of anti-Bush rhetoric, the New York Times Editorial Page and blogger Glenn Greenwald, revealed themselves to be little more than shallow-thinking, un-democratic outcomes-based demagogues, as opposed to political commentators interested in good law, or objective truth.

[Read on.]

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 19, 2006 at 07:57 PM in Bill Faith, Judicial Stupidity, Media Perfidy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Taylor Embarrassment
Contributed by Bill Faith

See my previous related post here.

The Taylor Embarrassment
Ed Morrissey

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:

Even legal experts who agreed with a federal judge’s conclusion on Thursday that a National Security Agency surveillance program is unlawful were distancing themselves from the decision’s reasoning and rhetoric yesterday.

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.

[...]

[Read on.]

Bill Clinton Jimmy Carter, the gift that just keeps on giving.

(Thank you Gray Dog for the correction. I should learn to have my second cup before I touch the keyboard.)

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 19, 2006 at 09:47 AM in Bill Faith, Islamism Delenda Est, Judicial Stupidity, War? What war? | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Friday, 18 August 2006
 

NSA eavesdropping program "unconstitutional" -- More 2
(Updated and bumped)
Contributed by Bill Faith

Continued from NSA eavesdropping program "unconstitutional" -- More

NSA Decision: Lots Of Emotion, Little Reasoning
Ed Morrissey

The ruling yesterday to forbid the President to continue his warrantless surveillance of international communications involving one party within the US seems likely to find resistance in the appellate court, not so much for its conclusion but for its emotional and mostly weightless reasoning. The Washington Post notes that legal scholars found themselves underwhelmed by the legal justifications of Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, and after reading the decision myself a couple of times, I'm glad to see that my reaction matched theirs:

[...]

Judicial opinions usually state the competing arguments in a lawsuit, which read like press releases combined with legal references, and then provide a solid line of reasoning towards the eventual decision. Taylor's opinion seems to just continue the assertions into the analysis, which is filled with scolding rhetoric but not much else. She comes across as so anxious to be the first to strike down the program that she marches right past the standing of the plaintiffs, which seems questionable, to agreement with every point raised by their attorneys.

[Read the whole thing.]

*** Update and bump. Original timestamp 11:21

Wiretap ruling knocked out- That's gonna leave a mark
Uncle Jimbo

I took some flak yesterday for my piece arguing the wiretap position was bunk. I am particularly unqualified to comment on matters of law, but this gentleman certainly is qualified, especially national security and intelligence law.

Bryan Cunningham served in senior positions in the CIA and as a federal prosecutor under President Clinton, and as deputy legal adviser to the National Security Council under President George W. Bush.

The Honorable Anna Diggs-Taylor probably means well. The lone judge in American history to order a president to halt in wartime a foreign-intelligence-collection program that has undoubtedly saved lives probably sympathizes with the journalists, and others, who are suing to stop the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) in which NSA intercepts foreign-U.S. terrorist communications. She probably feels in her heart the program is wrong, and undoubtedly hears the footsteps of the federal judicial panel moving towards taking this case away from her and consolidating it with others.

[...]

Much will be said about this opinion in the coming days. I’ll start with this: I wouldn’t accept this utterly unsupported, constitutionally and logically bankrupt collection of musings from a first-year law student, much less a new lawyer at my firm. Why not? Herewith, a start at a very long list of what’s wrong with Judge Taylor’s opinion.

[Read the whole thing.]

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 18, 2006 at 02:53 PM in Bill Faith, Islamism Delenda Est, Judicial Stupidity, War? What war? | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Thursday, 17 August 2006
 

NSA eavesdropping program "unconstitutional" -- More
Contributed by Bill Faith

See previous: NSA eavesdropping program ruled unconstitutional

Ideologue 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 Diggs Taylor, an ideologue Carter-appointed judge who has a documented history of bending the rules to obtain the leftist result.

As I reminded readers last month, Taylor once engaged in a highly unusual attempt to take the Michigan affirmative action case from a conservative judge:

[...]

Based on this history, I predicted in my earlier post that Judge Taylor would rule the NSA program unconstitutional. If Judge Taylor was willing to bend the rules to promote affirmative action, why not twist the law in order to rule unconstitutional a significant Bush anti-terror program?

[Read on.]

***

Analysis: The NSA wiretapping decision
Allahpundit

You want the knee-jerk version or the non-knee-jerk version?

Non-knee-jerk. I never thought I’d utter these words, but here they are: make sure you read the section on “standing.”

I’m not necessarily endorsing it, mind you. Just “airing” it.

(Slightly) knee-jerk. ...

[Read on.]

***

Anna Katherine Diggs Deep
Dafydd ab Hugh

"The game is afoot," as Sherlock Holmes said. (Oh yes he did; in "the Adventure of the Abbey Grange," for example.)

The first federal judge has struck down President Bush's NSA al-Qaeda intercept program as an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. Anna Katherine Johnston Diggs Taylor ruled for the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union:

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, monitoring phone calls and e-mails between people in the U.S. and people in other countries when a link to terrorism is suspected.

I can only suppose that the ACLU's argument is similar to the well-known constitutional doctrine that police may not tail a reporter they believe may be meeting with a wanted serial killer for for purpose of writing a book about him, as the police action might make it more difficult in future for that reporter to arrange interviews with other wanted felons.

The White House reacted quickly and predictably. Tony Snow said:

"United States intelligence officials have confirmed that the program has helped stop terrorist attacks and saved American lives," he said. "The program is carefully administered and only targets international phone calls coming into or out of the United States where one of the parties on the call is a suspected al-Qaida or affiliated terrorist."

The ACLU reacted quickly and predictably. Anthony Romero said:

[...]

[Read on.]

***

Where's the beef?
Paul Mirengoff

John, who is on vacation, has delegated to Scott and me the task of "dissecting" the district court opinion that strikes down the NSA's intercept program as unconstitutional. In a sense, however, there isn't much to dissect. The opinion is almost devoid of analysis on the key constitutional provisions it relies upon (the court essentially ducks the issue of whether the intercept program is consistent with FISA and whether the president has the inherent power to authorize the intercepts; it reasons that the Constitution trumps the statute and the president lacks the inherent power to violate specific constitutional provisions). It is part of my job as a litigator (and has been for more than 30 years) to read and understand judicial opinions. Off hand, I cannot recall reading an opinion as conclusory and content free as the portions of this opinion that pertain to the Constitution.

[...]

One begins to note some circularity here. The intercept program violates the Fourth Amendment because (I guess) it was implemented without regard to FISA. It violates the First Amendment (I guess) because it violates the Fourth Amendment. And we don't really have to analyze whether the program can be reconciled with FISA because it violates the First and Fourth Amendments.

[Read the whole thing.]

***

Confederate Yankee: A Blip

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 17, 2006 at 09:35 PM in Bill Faith, Islamism Delenda Est, Judicial Stupidity, War? What war? | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

NSA eavesdropping program ruled unconstitutional
Contributed by Bill Faith

Justice Department says it will appeal judge's decision

(CNN) -- A federal judge on Thursday ruled that the U.S. government's domestic eavesdropping program is unconstitutional and ordered it ended immediately.

The Justice Department said it would appeal the ruling, saying the program was "a critical tool that ensures we have in place an early warning system to detect and prevent a terrorist attack."

In a 44-page memorandum and order, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, -- who is based in Detroit, Michigan -- struck down the National Security Agency's program, which she said violates the rights to free speech and privacy. (Read the complete ruling -- PDF)

The defendants "are permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly utilizing the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) in any way, including, but not limited to, conducting warrantless wiretaps of telephone and Internet communications, in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Title III," she wrote.

[Read on.]

***

James Joyner has more here.

*** Update and bump Original timestamp 14:24.

Henry Mark Holzer was quick to get out a bio of the judge in question to his newsletter subscribers. I've posted it here.

***

Judge decides she will run the war not W
Uncle Jimbo

Timing for this is absolutely Rovian. Just after the Brits use even more aggressive techniques than our government to stop a 9/11 redux, our own privacy-obsessed ACLUers find a judge who doesn’t think stopping these things is important, or at least important enough for us to listen in on the bad guys as they communicate with their co-conspirators. I think we may finally have the showdown over this we should have long ago.

[Read on.]

***

John Hinderaker: "Consistent with unanimous precedent in the Federal Courts of Appeal, I would expect the 6th Circuit to reverse Judge Taylor's ruling and uphold the NSA program. That's a year or more off, however, and in the meantime the ACLU and the Democrats got the headlines they wanted from one of their own." Read John's whole post. He has some other interesting information about Judge Taylor.

***

Mary Katharine Ham has more here.

***

Ace:

On the heels of the SkyBomb busts, ably assisted by American signals intelligence (i.e., NSA intercepts), this judge has ruled that American efforts in this regard must stop immediately.

I don't question her timing. I question her sanity.

Rusty Shackleford:

Thank you Judge Taylor for shutting down the international wiretapping program. I feel so much safer knowing that my Constitutionally protected right to chat with Ayman al Zawahiri about the weather in Waziristan is safe in your hands. Thank you for saving me from the evil hands of George W. Bush. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

I can finally breathe again after being oppressed for so long.

***

Danny Carlton: Judge that ruled against NSA has history of ignoring the law

Curt at Flopping Aces, as usual, is excellent: Carter Lackey Overturns Program That Protects This Country

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 17, 2006 at 03:02 PM in Bill Faith, Islamism Delenda Est, Judicial Stupidity, War? What war? | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Thank you Jimmy Carter
Contributed by Bill Faith

From Henry Mark Holzer's free newsletter:

Thanks, Jimmy Carter

Here is the bio on the Michigan federal judge who just held the feds' "wiretapping" program unconstitutional. I don't recall who the US Senator(s) from Michigan were then, who recommended her to the president.

HMH

An attorney and judge, Anna Diggs Taylor was the first African-American woman appointed to a federal judgeship in Michigan and later became the first African-American woman to be named chief federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan. Taylor has used her positions to advance civil rights throughout the United States.

Born Anna Katherine Johnston in 1932 in Washington, D.C., Taylor grew up in a household in which politics and civil rights were highly valued. Her parents sent her to private school in Massachusetts because they felt she needed a greater challenge than the local schools provided. She graduated in 1950 from Northfield School for Girls in Massachusetts and then enrolled at Barnard College where she earned a B.A. in Economics. She entered Yale University Law School and earned her law degree in 1957. After graduation she could not find a job in a private law firm due to the prejudices against African Americans and women. She found work as a solicitor for the Department of Labor, working under J. Ernest Wilkins, the first African American to hold a sub-cabinet post in the United States government. In 1960 Taylor married United States Representative Charles Diggs, Jr., and she moved to Detroit.

After moving to Detroit, Taylor worked for a year as an assistant county prosecutor in Wayne County. In 1964 she spent the summer in Mississippi as part of the National Lawyers Guild civil rights program to provide legal services for civil rights activists, arriving on the day that three civil rights workers disappeared in Philadelphia, Mississippi. When Taylor and other attorneys went to the sheriff's office to ask about the disappearance they were surrounded by a crowd of angry whites, who hurled racial epithets at Taylor and her companions. In 1966 Taylor became assistant United States attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan.

After the birth of her daughter, she worked managing her husband's Detroit office until their divorce in 1971. From 1970 to 1975 she was a partner in the law firm Zwerdling, Mauer, Diggs, and Papp. In 1976 she married S. Martin Taylor. Taylor became active in politics, helping Coleman Young in his 1973 campaign and Jimmy Carter in his 1976 victory. After Young's election, Taylor was named special counsel to the City of Detroit and then in 1975 accepted the full time position as assistant corporation counsel for the city. She successfully defended new city policies that established affirmative action hiring practices and outlawed discrimination in two private yacht clubs located on city-owned Belle Isle. Taylor became the first African-American women named to a Michigan federal court on November 15, 1979, when she was sworn in as a federal judge to the U.S. District Court for the Eastren District of Michigan. In 1997 she became the first African-American woman to be named chi! ef judge of Eastern District of the United States District Court. In 1998 Taylor stepped down as chief judge in order to reduce her workload. She continued to serve as a senior federal judge.

It's not really fair to be badmouthing our old buddy Jimmy here, Henry. I mean do you really have any doubt he appointed the best quaified black woman he could find when that judgeship needed filling?

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 17, 2006 at 02:46 PM in Bill Faith, Islamism Delenda Est, Judicial Stupidity | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Thursday, 20 July 2006
 

Asymmetrical Warfare
Contributed by Bill Faith

From The Wall Street Journal: Osama in Genevaland. (via TIA Daily)

The Geneva Conventions of 1949 govern the treatment of lawful combatants and civilians during wartime. But now a new Pentagon memorandum concludes that Common Article 3 of the Conventions also governs the treatment of unlawful combatants: pirates, drug mafias and especially terrorists. So, five years after 9/11, the U.S. is about to give to people who ram commercial jets into buildings many of the same legal privileges and immunities as the average GI.

How did we get to this Osama in Genevaland world? Credit belongs to last week's Hamdan Supreme Court decision, and to Pentagon officials who have overinterpreted the meaning of that decision. Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England signed the memo, and our sources tell us it was issued without any wide deliberation with, or even particular awareness by, the White House Counsel's office or the Justice Department. (A White House spokesman didn't respond to our query.)

[...]

[Read on.]

Contributed by Bill Faith on July 20, 2006 at 04:28 AM in Bill Faith, Islamism Delenda Est, Judicial Stupidity | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Tuesday, 11 July 2006
 

Re: "Hmmm?"
Contributed by Bill Faith

Finally admitted I'd been pushing myself too hard and crashed for a little over 12 hours. In the mean time, Zero beat me to the story of the day. One of the great things about having a team blog is knowing I can take a few hours off now and then without wondering "But who'll mind the site?" Anyhoo, here are some related things I think you'll find interesting:

Genevamania! Bush extends Article 3 to detainees worldwide

Bush Administration Caves To ACLU

More Geneva: Pali PM cites Fourth Convention in WaPo op-ed

The Pentagon and Geneva: Terrorists pick up a major win

Geneva Convention Rights For Gitmo Detainees - Administration Sacrifices Safety For Friendship With The Left

***

Article 3
Dafydd ab Hugh

So today's media-driven episode of Bush Derangement Syndrome is the fallacious claim that, in some dramatic turnaround, the Bush administration now finally "admits" that terrorists are prisoners of war, entitled to the full protection of the Geneva Conventions as POWs -- including the right never to be interrogated. For example:

[Read on.]

***

DoD Memo on Terror Detainees - Jed Babbin

The new memorandum about the status of terrorist detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and elsewhere - signed by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England on Friday -- is being widely misreported. The memo, which is reproduced in full below, doesn't say that the terrorists are now POWs under the Geneva Conventions or that they will be afforded the full rights and protections of the Geneva Conventions.

What it does say is that with the exception of the military tribunals tossed out by the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan, the treatment of the terrorist enemy combatants - under the cited Defense Department and Army manuals - is believed to be consistent with Geneva standards. The media hype of this is entirely wrong.

[Read on.]

Contributed by Bill Faith on July 11, 2006 at 10:17 PM in Bill Faith, Islamism Delenda Est, Judicial Stupidity | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Sunday, 09 July 2006
 

HMH's Supreme Court Watch
Contributed by Bill Faith

From my email:

HENRY MARK HOLZER’S SUPREME COURT WATCH
[A project of Madison Press]

As many of you know, after decades of my working in the field of constitutional law— teaching, practicing, and writing books and articles—in early 2006 Madison Press published my book The Keeper of the Flame: The Supreme Court Opinions of Justice Clarence Thomas, analyzing fourteen terms (1991-2005) of this great justice’s opinions.

Since publication of The Keeper of the Flame, I have frequently been asked if I intended to supplement the book by continuing to examine Justice Thomas’s opinions—and whether, while I was at it, I would be willing to comment regularly on all the decisions of the Court. The questions have come from principally from non-lawyers who have a serious interest in Justice Thomas in particular and Supreme Court decisions in general.

I’ve found the idea intriguing, and so that’s what I have decided to do: provide regular commentary on Supreme Court opinions for non-lawyers.

The 2005-2006 term of the Supreme Court of the United States began in early October 2005 and the justices announced the last of their eighty-seven decisions at the end of June 2006. Justice Thomas participated in those decisions either by joining a majority, concurring, or dissenting opinion authored by another member of the Court (writing nothing of his own), or he himself wrote a majority, concurring, or dissenting opinion.

Beginning with the 2005-2006 term just concluded, I will provide regular commentary—from a conservative/libertarian perspective—on every decision of the Supreme Court.

The decisions in which Justice Thomas did not write an opinion, will reveal, albeit not in his own words, where he stood on the issues decided by the Court.

The decisions in which Justice Thomas did write an opinion—majority, concurring, and dissenting—will be treated differently. Just as I have done in The Keeper of the Flame, the opinions authored by Justice Thomas will be analyzed in detail, and then fit, in easily understood language, into the body of his jurisprudence.

In other words, I will provide commentary for the layperson about not only the Court’s overall decisions for terms beginning with 2005-2006, but, more importantly, the commentary will constitute an ongoing supplement to my book The Keeper of the Flame: The Supreme Court Opinions of Justice Clarence Thomas.

Although the facts of each case, the issue(s) to be decided, the factors motivating the decisions, and the conclusions reached by the justices will be presented objectively, my commentary will make abundantly clear whether I think the case’s outcome is “good” or “bad” for conservative/libertarian values. The vehicle for all of this is a website that I’ve just created. It is now on line, and is called “Henry Mark Holzer’s Supreme Court Watch.” Beginning right now, the site can be accessed at www.supremecourtwatch.info).

“Henry Mark Holzer’s Supreme Court Watch” is entirely different from and unconnected to my own website, www.henrymarkholzer.com. As such, it has no relation to that site’s Newsletter, through which I have disseminated much of my, and others’, writing on legal and political topics. Accordingly, that Newsletter mailing list (which I am using for this announcement) will not be used to send email announcements about new Supreme Court decisions posted on “Henry Mark Holzer’s Supreme Court Watch.” I suggest that those of you who are interested in this new website simply bookmark it, and then check from time to time to see what new cases I’ve covered. The Supreme Court’s cases will be discussed when, and in the order, they are decided—so interested readers should have no difficulty in avoiding material already viewed.

Although regular commentary for the just concluded 2005-2006 term will begin to appear in mid-July, because of the importance of the Court’s decision last week in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ––limiting the president’s power to fight the war against jihad—I have begun, out of order, with that case. My commentary on Hamdan is now available at www.supremecourtwatch.info in the “2005-2006 Term category.”

A “disclaimer” is necessary: No Supreme Court justice had any knowledge of “Henry Mark Holzer’s Supreme Court Watch” prior to this announcement, and no justice has, or will have, any connection with the site in the future. “Henry Mark Holzer’s Supreme Court Watch” is an undertaking entirely of my own, and I alone am responsible for its existence and content.

Please forward this announcement to anyone you think might be interested. Thank you.

HENRY MARK HOLZER

Contributed by Bill Faith on July 9, 2006 at 10:12 AM in Bill Faith, Judicial Stupidity, Judicial Wisdom | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Saturday, 08 July 2006
 

"Yemen acquits 19 suspected members of Al Qaeda"
Contributed by Bill Faith

"The glories of shari’a." Nothing I can add to that.

Contributed by Bill Faith on July 8, 2006 at 03:02 PM in Bill Faith, Islamism Delenda Est, Judicial Stupidity | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Unclear on the concept -- Part 1 of thousands -- Update
Contributed by Bill Faith

Click here for some background.

Navy, Whale Advocates Settle in Sonar Suit

The Navy can use high-intensity sonar for Pacific warfare exercises, but must stay away from some sensitive marine habitat and increase monitoring for whales, under an agreement reached Friday with environmental groups.

Four days earlier, a judge banned the sonar over concerns it could harm marine mammals.

The settlement prevents the Navy from using the sonar within 25 miles of the newly established Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument during its Rim of the Pacific 2006 exercises, and also imposes a variety of methods to watch for and report the presence of marine mammals.

[Read on.]

Contributed by Bill Faith on July 8, 2006 at 12:54 AM in Bill Faith, Judicial Stupidity, Unclear on the concept, US Navy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Friday, 07 July 2006
 

Charles Krauthammer: Emergency Over, Saith the Court
Contributed by Bill Faith

1861. 1941. 2001. Our big wars -- and the war on terrorism ranks with the big ones -- have a way of starting in the first year of a decade. Supreme Courts, which historically have been loath to intervene against presidential war powers in the midst of conflict, have tended to give the president until mid-decade to do what he wishes to the Constitution in order to win the war.

During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus -- trashing the Bill of Rights or exercising necessary emergency executive power, depending on your point of view. But he got the whole troublesome business done by 1865, and the Supreme Court stayed away.

During World War II, Franklin Roosevelt interned Japanese Americans. He, too, was left unmolested by the court. But Roosevelt also got his war wrapped up by 1945. Had the current war on terrorism followed course and ended in 2005, the sensational, just-decided Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case concerning military tribunals for Guantanamo Bay prisoners would have either been rendered moot or drawn a yawn.

But, of course, the war on terrorism is different. ...

[Read on.]

Contributed by Bill Faith on July 7, 2006 at 05:17 AM in Bill Faith, Islamism Delenda Est, Judicial Stupidity | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Unclear on the concept -- Part 1 of thousands
(Updated, bumped)
Contributed by Bill Faith

Federal Judge Issues Orders to Navy
Hatched by Dafydd ab Hugh

First the federal judiciary took control away from the president in the treatment of unlawful combatants; then they seized control away from Congress in the ratification and enforcement of the Geneva Conventions and for determining the jurisdiction of the federal courts -- which can now determine their own jurisdiction, and the Constitution be damned.

And now, a federal judge ("but some are more equal than others") has anointed herself the Commander in Chief of the armed forces; she has issued an order to the Navy ...

[Read on.]

***

Michelle Malkin has more here.

Contributed by Bill Faith on July 7, 2006 at 12:55 AM in Bill Faith, Judicial Stupidity, Unclear on the concept, US Navy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Tuesday, 04 July 2006
 

What the Hamdan ruling says--and what it doesn't say
Contributed by Bill Faith

Hamdan
By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey.

The Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, invalidating for now the use of military commissions to try al Qaeda and associated detainees, may be a setback for U.S. policy in the war on terror. But it is a setback with a sterling silver lining. All eight of the justices participating in this case agreed that military commissions are a legitimate part of the American legal tradition that can, in appropriate circumstances, be used to try and punish individuals captured in the war on terror. Moreover, nothing in the decision suggests that the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay must, or should, be closed.

Indeed, none of the justices questioned the government's right to detain Salim Ahmed Hamdan (once Osama bin Laden's driver), or other Guantanamo prisoners, while hostilities continue. Nor did any of them suggest that Mr. Hamdan, or any other Guantanamo detainee, must be treated as civilians and accorded a speedy trial in the civilian courts. ...

[Read on.]

Contributed by Bill Faith on July 4, 2006 at 12:14 AM in Bill Faith, Islamism Delenda Est, Judicial Stupidity | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Monday, 03 July 2006
 

Do al Qaeda detainees deserve the same rights as U.S. GIs?
Contributed by Bill Faith

After Hamdan

America's political elites certainly have come a long way since September 11. In the wake of that bloody attack on U.S. soil, everyone clamored for the executive branch to act with energy and dispatch against our enemies. Yet last week, not five years later, many of those same voices celebrated a Supreme Court ruling that rebuked the executive in order to guarantee more rights to Osama bin Laden's former driver and bodyguard.

That is the larger context in which to read the Supreme Court's verdict in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which has liberal journalists waxing lyrical even in their news accounts. Only a country that feels safe once again would dare to rejoice in a ruling that could give enemy combatants the same due process rights that U.S. servicemen get in a court martial. We'll now see if Congress feels as complacent as it seeks to rewrite the rules on military commissions.

[Read on.]

Contributed by Bill Faith on July 3, 2006 at 10:03 AM in Bill Faith, Islamism Delenda Est, Judicial Stupidity | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Sunday, 02 July 2006
 

CQ: Congress Will Override Supreme Court On Tribunals
Contributed by Bill Faith

Congress appears ready to overrule the Supreme Court and establish military tribunals for detainess in the war on terror, allowing for the most efficient process possible to determine the culpability of terrorists captured in the act. Senators from both parties have determined that the Supreme Court has forced them to act to keep al-Qaeda operatives from exploiting the civil court system:

The US Congress is ready to craft legislation to prosecute Guantanamo war-on-terror prisoners after the government's plan for military trials was rejected by the Supreme Court, top senators said.

[...]

[Read on here.]

Best news I've heard all day.

Contributed by Bill Faith on July 2, 2006 at 09:43 PM in Bill Faith, Judicial Stupidity | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

A Constitutional Right To Jihad?
Contributed by Bill Faith

Court finds a right to jihad in the Constitution
Mark Steyn

There are several ways to fight a war. On the one hand, you can put on a uniform, climb into a tank, rumble across a field and fire on the other fellows' tank. On the other, you can find a 12-year-old girl, persuade her to try on your new suicide-bomber belt and send her waddling off into the nearest pizza parlor.

The Geneva Conventions were designed to encourage the former and discourage the latter. The thinking behind them was that, if one had to have wars, it's best if they're fought by soldiers and armies. In return for having a rank and serial number and dressing the part, you'll be treated as a lawful combatant should you fall into the hands of the other side. There'll always be a bit of skulking around in street garb among civilian populations, but the idea was to ensure that it would not be rewarded --that there would, in fact, be a downside for going that route.

The U.S. Supreme Court has now blown a hole in the animating principle behind the Geneva Conventions ...

[Read on.]

Contributed by Bill Faith on July 2, 2006 at 05:31 PM in Bill Faith, Judicial Stupidity | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack