John Weidner:

I had braced myself to abstain from this provocation, but I simply CANNOT allow Hugh's (and your) derogation of the Diggs decision to continue to pass unchallanged.

Blatant violation of FISA and the 4th Amendment;
seizure of Congress' authority by the Executive;
disregard for the Courts?

The only absurdity here is the effort to destroy our Constitution on behalf of a coterie of incompetents - who cannot produce even a single successful prosecution of, nor foiling of, any individual or group, by the subject NSA program (well, except for the substantial files created on all the Quakers, Greens, and other such insidious threats to our security; and the reams added to MY files from Chicago-1968, to cover my internet expressions of disgust with this administration).

Fourteen days is the average life expectancy of each reported result of this program: at ten days, the prosecutors are announcing releases of the accused, due to lack of evidence - albeit on the QT, as opposed to the trumpets blared to accompany announcements of the arrests, "disruptions" of the "plots".

So, please: PLAY FAIR!

The Diggs decision is not absurd merely because you say it is absurd. There are either reasons adduced in support of that conclusion, or we must draw our own conclusions - that you are merely foaming at the mouth, possibly even rabid - but have no sound argument to offer.

Gwinn, you are just making an ass of yourself. Even those legal experts who think the NSA surveillance program is unconstitutional agree that this is a content-free opinion, and will be overturned by the appellate court. And HH is a professor of constitutional law.

John Weidner:

The decision is rendered from the facts and arguments presented. It follows perfectly both precedent and argument - the DOJ declined to argue any of the facts or allegations, so those were undisputed defaults. Now as to the eventual treatment by the appellate courts, that cannot legally examine arguments not made by the DOJ, so overturning this decision may just be a tad tougher than you appear to anticipate. Given the court-packing by proponents of the "unitary executive" - make that the nutso faction of the Repugnants - you may - MAY - succeed, but there is nothing foregone that you will.

I would imagine that your ultimate retreat to the pernicious Supremes might even be a little chancy: Bungle (Bush to those far to my right) has so abused the process here, and so cheerfully admitted to doing so, that even that unholy alliance of dumb and dumber (four of whom I separately argue to impeach, in another thread) might rise to the challenge of defending their own existence.

The Administration has kept its big guns in reserve--but that doesn't mean that their arguments or the precedents have gone away. Cases such as Hamdi, In Re Sealed Case, and Truong...

You can find a good summary of the case law here. Until you can address the actual cases that bear, you are just wasting my time and yours. And since Judge Diggs did not deal with these precedents, she is also wasting everybody's time.

four of whom I separately argue to impeach, in another thread

Correction - four of whom you assert should be impeached. I'm still awaiting an argument. I'm sure it'll be unassailable, though!

Sorry for wasting your time pointing out the obvious: the reason no Democrat of any stature or visibility has stepped forward to criticize that decision, is that it is a good and valid decision from the trial court - determiners of fact, if you will. The scrutiny you wish for cannot properly apply until the facts are determined, and the appeals should not dispute the factual determinations of the trial court; the interpretation of those facts under various theories of law - there is the province of the appeals court.

Since no aspect of the case was disputed by the DOJ - EXCEPT jurisdiction, and that disputation poorly presented; and since the Court is bound to rule on the facts and arguments presented - I can only hope the idiots keep refusing to present a case all the way to God! There will be no chance of DOJ prevailing THERE, I assure you! (Robertson and Bungle thought they were the ONLY guys to whom He gave His cell number?)

Oh, Ethan - what you seek, seek . . . and ye shall find . . .

John Weidner:

OK, I worked through the recommended tighty-Righty reading list you offered, and reached a resounding conclusion:
Diggs Taylor was even better than I at first believed, and most of the bashing by objectors is simply more Scalia-judging (finding SOME citation to at least block for the effort to reach a predetermined judgement).
Actually, there were two conclusions: Powerline is not top ten as best source for unbiased Constitutional interpretation.

The major fault I found with the much-criticized ruling, is that she was far to kind to the DOJ BS about "State Secrets".

The only "State Secrets" involved in this case, are "what share of the intercepts are domestic at both ends" - in an offhand guess, maybe 99%? "What % of the time is the intercept for purposes other than counter-terrorism" - perhaps, based on the oft-admitted
ineffectiveness of this program in combatting the threat of terrorism, 99%? "Why not use FISA for it's intended purpose" - the Emperor doesn't ask for warrants?

Along with Delay and Frist and Ney and Cunningham and Abramafia, Cheney and Bush in orange jumpsuits?