Judicial restraint

… on proven means of combating terror.

A week ago, we had a terrorist plot to bomb ten airliners and kill thousands of innocents foiled by the work of Britain’s MI5 with the aid of our own National Security Agency’s telephone intercepts. The program the Democrats and The New York Times have been busy politicizing.

Today, we have a U.S. District Judge, in Michigan I’m ashamed to say, rule that the NSA program is unconstitutional in a suit brought by the ACLU. FWIW, this judge campaigned for, and was appointed by, the worst President since FDR – and 2nd worst of all time – Dhimmi Carter.

I don’t know about you, but when it comes to Jihadi terrorism, I’m rather have MI5 and the NSA on my side than our federal courts and the ACLU.

Fortunately, this decision has been appealed and is likely to be overturned by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

2 thoughts on “Judicial restraint”

  1. I can’t see where I argued that, but in any case – just because some Liberal activist federal judge calls something unconstitutional, a “something” by the way, that has been upheld by the most Liberal Circuit court in the country – the 9th – doesn’t actually make it unconstitutional. There is no 4th Amendment issue here. Even the Congressional Democrats have been suggesting that they pass a law to regularize what our naughty President has already been doing. They obviously don’t consider the program unconstitutional because if it were, it would not matter one wit what kind of law they passed. They are simply asserting their authority to limit the President’s power. Just like the judge, though that is not her job.The suit was brought on behalf of “scholars and reporters” who claimed that their communications with people in other countries, people they thought might be terrorists, had been unfairly restricted. The judge decided to grant them standing in the suit basically because, if she did not, who was going to call out the executive branch?Her decision was even more specious.