If I were a student at Wisconsin Law, I’d ask for my money back based on this alone.
TO end her opinion in American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency — the case that enjoins President Bush’s warrantless surveillance program — Judge Anna Diggs Taylor quoted Earl Warren (referring to him as “Justice Warren,” not “Chief Justice Warren,” as if she wanted to spotlight her carelessness): “It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of … those liberties … which makes the defense of the nation worthwhile.”
Yeah, let’s ignore the quote itself and how profound Warren’s statement is in these times when the administration is trying to gut the Constitution in the name of national security and focus on Judge Taylor’s failure to slap a “Chief” in front of the “Justice” when writing her opinion. That invalidates the whole thing!
UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald has a lot more, including the fact that Althouse has been forced to admit that she has loudly criticized this case and Judge Taylor but knows nothing about this case and has only skimmed the opinion. Yet she gets a forum on the Op-Ed pages of the Paper of Record to admonish Judge Taylor for, for instance, the “incomplete” opinion:
But it is nothing short of humiliating that Althouse had no idea that any of that happened in this case. She hasn’t followed this case at all. She has no idea what took place. Just as is the case for her good friend and colleague, Orin Kerr, whom she cites for support in her Op-Ed, Althouse is criticizing Judge Taylor for an “incomplete” opinion because Althouse is entirely ignorant of the fact that the DoJ chose not to advance any substantive arguments on the merits of these claims. She quotes Kerr to accuse Taylor of issuing an “incomplete” opinion, but Kerr — like Althouse — simply did not know that the DoJ made no substantive arguments that went to the merits of this lawsuit (a failure which arose from the fact that the DoJ, reflecting the Bush administration’s belief that it is above judicial review, argued only that the court had no right to decide these issues).
Although these critical events in this lawsuit were all public and reported by major newspapers, Althouse learned of them for the first time — as she reluctantly admitted — by reading the Comment section at Volokh on Monday, after which she had to correct a completely false factual claim she made about the case. Her ignorance about these matters was not concerning some obscure legalisitc point. Rather, she was just blissfully and inexcusably unaware of the most important fact necessary for understanding Judge Taylor’s decision — that the DoJ failed to raise any of the issues which she and her good friend, Professor Kerr, find so “immensely difficult.”
Similar Posts (automatically generated):
- Unconstitutional by zuzu August 17, 2006
- Because He’s the Decider, That’s Why by zuzu July 18, 2006
- The Indiana Statehouse’s Little Talk With Jesus by Lauren December 15, 2005
- Political Crime and Security Culture by Lauren December 17, 2005
- Calls For Impeachment Are Just The Beginning by zuzu March 16, 2006