August 18, 2006, - 1:44 pm

What Motivated Judge Diggs Taylor in ACLU NSA Suit?: Nixon Wiretap Decision Lionized Colleague w/Left

It wasn’t just politics that motivated Federal Judge Anna Diggs Taylor to .
Sources say it was Judge Diggs Taylor’s desire to be lionized by the American left, just like her friend and mentor, fellow Democrat and U.S. Court of Appeals Chief Damon J. Keith (who, by the way, only hires minorities for his law clerk positions–White males and females need not apply).
In the early 1970s, Judge Keith, then a Federal Judge in the Eastern District of Michigan–as Judge Diggs Taylor is now–ruled against President Nixon in United States v. Sinclair, a well-known wiretapping case, similar to Diggs Taylor’s case. Keith’s decision in that case lionized him to the American left and solidified his position in left-wing judicial activist sainthood. (The case, however, was different in that Nixon was allegedly wiretapping to defeat political opponents. President Bush did so to save our country from terrorist attacks.) Keith’s decision in the Sinclair was so celebrated by the left, that it became known to the legal community as the “Keith Decision.”

Thanks for Endangering Our Lives:

Judge Anna Diggs Taylor Wants to Be Like Judge Damon J. Keith

From Keith’s bio:

[H]e is most cited for his opinion in United States v. Sinclair, commonly referred to as The Keith Decision. In Sinclair, Judge Keith, sitting on the district court, found that then-President Richard Nixon and then-Attorney General John Mitchell could not engage in warrantless wiretap surveillance of three individuals suspected of conspiring to destroy government property because the surveillance was in violation of the Fourth Amendment. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and unanimously upheld by the United States Supreme Court.

Sources say that Diggs Taylor is eager to get the recognition and kudos from the left that Keith got, and saw this case–with a very similar fact pattern–a Republican Administration conducting warrantless wiretaps–as her judicial star vehicle. Her legal Nobel Prize. They say Diggs Taylor’s willingness to engage in misconduct to hijack the University of Michigan affirmative action case is more evidence of her eagerness for a famous, celebrated end to her long legal career in leftist causes.
Judge Keith swore Diggs Taylor in as a Federal Judge in 1979. He told The Detroit Spews:

She’s the type of judge you want to hear the surveillance case.

Of course, she’s the type of judge he wants deciding that case. But not the one America needs.
So glad that risking the safety of Americans helped Judge Diggs Taylor became Miss Lefty Judge America.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

5 Responses

The Islamic terrorists don’t really have to do anything to defeat us. We are taking care of that ourselves.

Rich B on August 18, 2006 at 3:38 pm

We have moonbats who live on raw hatred. I don’t know how these people can be literally angry all the time. I used to be a Democrat but I was never really a liberal. And looking back on it, I’m glad I’m not someone who loathes America like Anna Diggs Taylor.

NormanF on August 18, 2006 at 7:52 pm

You folks have a short memory. Try to remember that the United States already has a ruling in place that allows them 72 hours before submitting a request for a warrant. That is PLENTY of time to get yourselves some bad guys. If you need more time than that, you must be an American haw haw haw. Here, read this and shut up:
“To the Editor:
Re U.S. Judge Finds Wiretap Actions Violate the LawÔø? (front page New York Times, Aug. 18):
Once again, the knee-jerk response of the administration and ruling party is to label the judge who ruled against the warrantless eavesdropping program a ‘liberal,’ deride the opinion and state that this ruling would ‘disarm America during a time of war.’
There is no doubt that a wiretapping program is necessary. But what the proponents of the National Security AgencyÔø?s warrantless program consistently donÔø?t acknowledge is that a program exists that eliminates many of the concerns enumerated in the ruling.
The intelligence community does not need to wait for a court order to initiate a wiretap. The attorney general can authorize an emergency order and has 72 hours to seek a court order.
Given this extended period of time to gather additional evidence, along with the evidence that provoked the wiretap, it does not appear to be an unreasonable burden to permit some nonexecutive oversight to occur. Nor will complying with the law ‘disarm America.’
Tony Curtis
Chicago, Aug. 18, 2006
The writer is a lawyer.”
Sounds like you folks are the “haters” here, not Judge Diggs-Taylor.

bloodstomper on August 19, 2006 at 12:31 am

Bloodstomper: The NSA program never actually listens to conversations as would a normal wiretap as it is “data mining” which only looks for key words in repetition. When those words are discovered, “a bulb is lit” and agents are notified. Your assessment of the program is in error as no one is “wiretapped” until the program alerts someone that might be suspect. Therefore, only those involved in lawbreaking terror activeties have to fear this. The 72 hours you state for the grace period before receiving that FISA court ordered permission to actually listen in is for actual conversations not the data mined info you claim.
To claim otherwise is dishonest but them when did hat ever stop lawyers from falsehoods. You and your liberal activist Judges have no comprehension of technology and how it works and used in the defense of America. Your only goal is paint the painstaking effort against the Islamofascist enemy as a bad thing. You all make me sick to my stomach!

warpmine on August 20, 2006 at 9:29 am

“Sources say it was Judge Diggs Taylor’s desire to be lionized by the American left…”
While I don’t doubt their assessment, I’d like to know who these sources are and how they know what Digg Taylor’s motivation was.

thegoalie on August 21, 2006 at 10:40 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field