Thursday, September 27, 2007

One courageous judge rules for civil rights

By Libby

In this week of overwhelmingly depressing and disgusting betrayal by our political class, one small sign of sanity shines like a beacon of hope. A judge in Oregon struck down part of the Patriot Act.
Two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without a showing of probable cause, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the Patriot Act, "now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment." [...]

"For over 200 years, this Nation has adhered to the rule of law — with unparalleled success. A shift to a Nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised," she wrote.

By asking her to dismiss Mayfield's lawsuit, the judge said, the U.S. attorney general's office was "asking this court to, in essence, amend the Bill of Rights, by giving it an interpretation that would deprive it of any real meaning. This court declines to do so."

If we could just bottle that common sense and courage and transfuse it to our elected politicians, maybe we could still save this country from the clutches of madmen, political opportunists and fools.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

5 Comments:

Anonymous Marc said...

This so-called 'Patriot Act' is the measure of the victory of our enemies over us. As we surrender our freedoms in the name of security we devolve into the Taliban. If this stupidity is not overturned, it will have marked the beginning of our slow national suicide.

11:45:00 AM  
Blogger The Griper said...

he grins at this one:

"If we could just bottle that common sense and courage and transfuse it to our elected politicians, maybe we could still save this country from the clutches of madmen, political opportunists and fools."

if we could do that there would be no need of Courts. in fact if we could transfuse common sense and courage in everyone we would not need an entire court system now, would we?
it would seem that the founding fathers set up such a government in recognition of the lack of common sense and courage you claim be lacking in politics. i believe that we call it the check and balance system.

then he had to just laugh at this one:
"For over 200 years, this Nation has adhered to the rule of law — with unparalleled success. A shift to a Nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised," she wrote.

if you agree with this paragraph i'd suggest that you take a good American history course before making a statement like this again.

12:48:00 PM  
Blogger Capt. Fogg said...

I agree that we have always been corrupt, stupid and far short of realizing the kind of state we were supposed to be, but if you think that's justification for abandoning the attempt and kicking the props out from under the structure, you should maybe get a book on fallacy.

2:47:00 PM  
Blogger Libby Spencer said...

Marc - so true.

Griper - that second quote was the from the judge's decision, not mine. I expect she is better versed in the law and history then you are.

2:47:00 PM  
Blogger The Griper said...

Capt Fogg,

never said we should abandon the attempt nor was there intent of that. i was only commenting on the statement as made.

libby,
maybe you are right but i'd ask the japanese who were interned during WWII with the blessing of those who are better versed in law than you or me if they'd agree with that statement she made, first.

I would also ask those who suffered from the "Seperate but Equal" policy of those who are better versed in law if they agree with that statement.

i would ask any person who suffered from war undeclared if they agree with that statement, first.

i would ask any person who spent time in prison because he could not afford a lawyer if they'd agree with that statement. or those whose confessions was taken and accepted because he did not know he was entitled to a lawyer.

i would ask any person who suffered as a result of the suspension of habeus corpus law if they agree with that statement.

ask any Indian tribe whose lands were stolen from them if they'd agree with that statement.

i can go on a long time with this, libby. her being judge does not mean i do not know enough about the law to argue the point against the words she used. she may know the law better than we do but i'm saying that the words she used does not affirm her decision.

and libby, one more thing. they are your words. the fact you just quoted someone does not make them any less yours in your arguement. the quotation marks only recognize that you were not first to use them.

3:36:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home