T1B

You're surprised that a judge is enthusiastic about civil liberties?

You're about one thick motherfucker.

mvscal wrote: Oh, BTW, maybe you can explain precisely what standing the ACLU had to sue in this case.

OK, will do. And I will do so with the utmost clarity, and as comcisely as humanly possible --

The Bill of Rights wrote:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

And if you liberals don't stop threatening my INALIENABLE RIGHTS, I am well within my rights to organize a militia to do whatever is necessary to make you stop threatening my rights....let's not forget THAT right, too.

Shut up, liberals...don't make me kill you...please. The above Amendment is 1/10th of those "freedoms" we're "fighting for."

Anyone who want's to remove a freedom, in the name of protecting said freedom...well, do the math...that person is a complete fucking idiot.

RACK the ACLU for being CONSERVATIVE.

My rights aren't up for debate. I have them. You, nor anybody else can take them. I will fight anyone who does. Because that is what AMERICANS do...it's offensive that some of you complete fucking pussies have the nerve to even call yourselves "americans." You're a fucking disgrace to the flag.


Anyone who is willing to sacrifice the Rights as an American because of some deaths in war should be deported, or imprisoned for treason...since you're doing OBL's bidding.

Fucking pussies.

88 wrote:It doesn't matter what the judge's politics and hobbies are, as far as I am concerned. We have appellate courts to review district court decisions, and because the NSA eavesdropping decision was decided on on substantially stipulated facts, there will be little deference paid to the decision. Let the 6th Circuit have a shot at the issue, and then the SCOTUS, if necessary.

Gets it.

^ nice...but, Dins has a far too liberal interpretation of the English Language.

I will do so with the utmost clarity, and as comcisely as humanly possible

...oh, the hugh manatee.

Lately, if 85%+ of my keystrokes land in the right place, I'm OK with it.

I've kind of given up on the proofreading as of late, due to you guys being fucking retards who rarely notice, anyway.

Shouldn't the title of this thread be:

remember that judge who ruled in favor of the american people?

mvscal wrote:Yep, just the trustee of a group that made heavy donations to the plaintiffs in the case before her. No conflict of interests here or anything...move along.

Yep, some things never change. mvscal making a snap judgment in support of the political agenda he parrots on this board is one of those things.

Three legal ethicists interviewed said although Judge Taylor’s role as a trustee for a supporter of the civil liberties group would not necessarily disqualify her from hearing the case, she should have probably disclosed the connection in court to avoid any appearance of a conflict.

“It certainly would have been prudent” to notify the parties in the case, including the Justice Department, about the issue, said Steven Lubet, a law professor at Northwestern University and an author of “Judicial Conduct and Ethics.”

“I don’t think there’s a clear answer as to whether she should have disqualified herself,” Professor Lubet said. “But at a minimum, she should have disclosed it.”

Hmmm, whom to believe, once again?

You mean a judge sympathetic to the Bill Of Rights and basic civil liberties? Or a judge sympathetic to a neocon agenda of creeping fascism?

Look, the Chimp's legal footing in this case is about as sure as his handle on basic English syntax? I mean, wtf!!--is he genuinely retarded? He really has a very difficult time delivering a sound bite mantra, and an actual spontaneous explication of ANY subject is completely out of the question.

It's Impeachment time. Really.

LTS TRN 2 wrote: It's Impeachment time. Really.

If he continues to support the illegal spying after a court order to stop...then yes, it is.

mvscal wrote:Shove it up your ass, cocksucker.

If you maintain that that isn't a clear conflict of interest, you are a motherfucking liar. Period.

I didn't maintain that. Three legal ethicists did. And those are people far smarter than you as to this area.

JSC810 wrote:Terry, I'm not saying that it necessarily warranted a recusal, but don't you think she should have notified the parties of the potential conflict prior to the hearing?

I agree that she should have disclosed that fact prior to the hearing.

And if you liberals don't stop threatening my INALIENABLE RIGHTS, I am well within my rights to organize a militia to do whatever is necessary to make you stop threatening my rights

You don't have a right to communicate with terrorists with impunity, dipshit. And you still don't knwo shit about the BoR. Maybe someone can explain the phrase unreasonable search in words small enough for you to understand, I won't waste the time.

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:I agree that she should have disclosed that fact prior to the hearing.

But she failed to do so. Why do you suppose that is, huh?

I don't know. And neither do you, although you'll undoubtedly protest to the contrary.

This moves us past the appearance of a conflict of interest directly to an actual conflict of interest given her ruling.

Again, I'm more inclined to go with the opinion of three legal ethicists than to go with your opinion on this one.

mvscal wrote:Oh, BTW, maybe you can explain precisely what standing the ACLU had to sue in this case.

...clearly illuminates the fact that the ACLU (an organization with dubious standing to sue in this case) went shopping for a sympathetic judge.

Not that a fuckstain like you would understand, but they have standing because they met the 3 part test.
1) A member has standing.
2) Interest asserted is germane to association's purpose.
3) Members are not indispensable.

Any questions you stupid racist fuck?

Diogenes wrote:You don't have a right to communicate with terrorists with impunity

Link to where I nade that claim?

That's right, you're a complete fucking retard, and have a complete inability to debate anything unless you make up your opponent's views, which will obviously make it easier for someone as dimwitted as yourself.

If I'm suspected of making communications that involve plotting against the American People, then I would strongly suggest...here's a novel concept...I suggest the NSA/CIA/FBI/DHS PRESENT EVIDENCE OF THIS TO A JUDGE, AND HAVE A WARRANT ISSUED TO MONITOR MY COMMUNICATIONS.

Wow, what a concept...and it's only about 200+ years old.

Maybe someone can explain the phrase unreasonable search

Maybe someone can do likewise for you, and explain "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects," and explain why it's the very foundation this nation was built upon -- a foundation that's worked reasonably well for 200-odd years, despite pussified retards wanting to trash it along the way. Those pussies were shot down, and I have utmost faith that our present-day pussies will meet the same fate.


Don't want to risk dying for your freedoms? Find another country to live in, pussy. Fucking deplorable that people want to rally behind troops to "protect their freedom," yet are willing to cash in that very freedom to avoid a 1-in-100,000 chance they might be the victim of a terrrrrrest.

Absolutely deplorable.

I'm willing to take that risk. The pussies are not. Who's the fucking patriot here? Not the fucking pussies, that's for sure. Just because YOU support a revolution against the United States of America, it doesn't mean the rest of us do. And since you're clearly not willing to die for your country, you will lose this insurgency. Too fucking bad, pussy.

Dinsdale wrote:Those pussies were shot down...

Wrong. Do I REALLY have to go thru all the exceptions to the warrant rule carved out by legislators, judges and justices just since the 'drug war' started?

... and I have utmost faith that our present-day pussies will meet the same fate.

Most everything runs in cycles.

mvscal wrote:The program is ongoing. The government was granted a stay pending the dismissal of this moronic and legally baseless opinion.

Yet, I have yet to read a post by you, legal scholar that you are, that indicates where the legal error is.

mvscal wrote:If you are receiving phone calls from foreign terrorists, the government had better fucking be listening.

Couldn't agree any more.

I've even stated as much on this board -- the Fighters Of Terrorism should have whatever resources are necessary to present their evidence as quickly as possible, to a judge who is sitting in the same room, or who is available to issue warrants IMMEDIATELY. If this requires more staffing and expenditures, than so be it.

Only for Citizens, of course -- foreign nationals should be afforded no such protections.

I'm alllll for that. I'm also all for the BoR being followed to a "T." The two certainly aren't mutally exculsive, and it's beyond me how anyone ever got the impression they were.

The Rights of American Citizens and a comprehensive plan to gather intelligence against terrorists can peacefully exist side-by-side, hand-in-hand...if only our failing two-party system would quit polarizing the nation, and quit branding differing views with negative labels. The two parties have become borderline-criminally irresponsible.

Moving Sale wrote:Wrong. Do I REALLY have to go thru all the exceptions to the warrant rule carved out by legislators, judges and justices just since the 'drug war' started?

Don't get me started...

Those laws are clearly unconstitutional, and the parties responsible should be held accountable for treason.


"Material witness"? Puh-fucking-leeez. The BoR exists to protect people from being plucked off thew street randomly by the government.

Dins,
If the 'laws are clearly unconstitutional' and yet on the books, who has 'won'... at least for now?

See You Next Wednesday wrote:Shouldn't the title of this thread be:

remember that judge who ruled in favor of the terrorists?

Yes, it should be.

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Again, I'm more inclined to go with the opinion of three legal ethicists than to go with your opinion on this one.

Then you need to reread what they actually said instead what you wanted them to say.

I agreed to a tee with what they had to say. I stated that the judge should have disclosed her affiliation at the outset. But her affiliation didn't necessarily require recusal here.

88 wrote:I personally think the NSA, FBI and Justice Department ought to be going to the FISA court unless there is a really, really, really good fucking reason why they can't get there in time. And I also think the FISA court should have a very low standard for granting warrants. If there is even a remote possibility that the wire tap might yield information that could protect the interests of the country, then the FISA court should grant the warrant. Warrants should only be denied where the NSA, FBI and/or Justice Department cannot articulate a non-political reason why they need the wiretap. My two cents.

I agree with nearly all of this. "Political" being a key word. Everybody wants the FBI and NSA to be able to stop terrorist attacks. Nobody wants the authorities using this power to arrest Joe Blow because they don't like his political views. Like it or not, governments -- including our own -- have a long history of abusing this kind power, no matter how well-intended it is for our "protection." The FISA court may not be the ideal oversight, but it's better than no oversight, which is what the concern is with the program. And no, "we won't abuse it, we promise," isn't good enough.

mvscal wrote:Oh, BTW, maybe you can explain precisely what standing the ACLU had to sue in this case.

88 wrote:http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/eGov/taylo ... 010204.pdf

Read the decision. The issue of standing is addressed at pp. 15-24.

Btw, the ACLU wasn't the only Plaintiff in the case.

So are they releasing the iaa phone sex tapes or not? A certain PosterX wants to know.

What 88 said.


Except the "really really good fucking reason" part.

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Read the decision. The issue of standing is addressed at pp. 15-24.

I don't find her reasoning even remotely compelling.

I'm sure that just breaks her heart.

mvscal wrote:[I don't find her reasoning even remotely compelling.

Guess what? No one gives a shit what YOU think.

BODE judge. Unbode pmsgal.

Sorry that YOU hate America, but the rest of us don't give a shit about your whims.


How many of THOSE replies has mv dropped in his career? The shoe is on the other hand now, bitch.

Stop your crying, you liberal hand-wringer.