Chron endorses decision widely criticized for its reasoning
The New York Times ran an interesting story today on the recent decision by a federal judge on the NSA's warrantless surveillance. Here's a key snippet:
Even legal experts who agreed with a federal judge’s conclusion on Thursday that a National Security Agency surveillance program is unlawful were distancing themselves from the decision’s reasoning and rhetoric yesterday.
They said the opinion overlooked important precedents, failed to engage the government’s major arguments, used circular reasoning, substituted passion for analysis and did not even offer the best reasons for its own conclusions.
Discomfort with the quality of the decision is almost universal, said Howard J. Bashman, a Pennsylvania lawyer whose Web log provides comprehensive and nonpartisan reports on legal developments.
“It does appear,” Mr. Bashman said, “that folks on all sides of the spectrum, both those who support it and those who oppose it, say the decision is not strongly grounded in legal authority.”
The main problems, scholars sympathetic to the decision’s bottom line said, is that the judge, Anna Diggs Taylor, relied on novel and questionable constitutional arguments when more straightforward statutory ones were available.
Unsurprisingly, the Chronicle Editorial LiveJournalists, who also sometimes rely on novel and questionable legal arguments, just loved the decision.
Thanks to Orrin Judd for the New York Times link.
BLOGVERSATION: WILLisms.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 08/19/06 05:31 PM | Houston Chronicle | Print | Comments (2)
Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry
ADVERTISING
DISCLAIMER
All content © 2004-09, blogHOUSTON and the respective authors.
blogHOUSTON.net is powered by Nucleus.
Site design and Nucleus customization are by Kevin Whited.