Review, Judicial, II


Ann Althouse, professor of law at the University of Wisconsin, has had the final word on judge Anna Diggs Taylor’s slovenly jurisprudence decision regarding warrantless intercepts of calls to foreign suspected terrorists.

Writing in the New York Times, (it must be their “balance” piece for 2006) she points out:

If the words of the written opinion reveal that the judge did not follow the discipline of the judicial process, what sense does it make to take the judge’s word about what the law means over the word of the president? If the judge’s own writing does not support a belief that the rule of law has substance and depth, that law is something apart from political will, the significance of saying the president has gone beyond the limits of the law evaporates.

The whole thing.

Comments