Judge Rules NSA Lawsuit Can Continue

In all of the suits going on in various courts over the NSA's domestic spying programs, the government is arguing that the courts cannot even hear such cases because the process of discovery will violate the state secrets privilege. At least one court, the Federal circuit for the Northern District of California, has now rejected that claim (see ruling here). Now let's hope the ACLU's case here in Michigan goes the same way. And, interestingly enough, Judge Vaughn Walker, who issued the ruling, is a conservative. He was originally nominated for the Federal bench by Reagan, but faced fierce opposition from liberal groups because of his membership in an all-male club and his representation of the US Olympic Committee in a case that prevented a San Francisco group from calling their athletic competition the "Gay Olympics". He ended up being renominated by Bush 41 and confirmed by the Senate, and he is now the Chief Judge for that circuit.

Tags

More like this

Good ol' Gribbit repeats this one ridiculous argument that is par for the course among the STACLU crowd: the notion that the ACLU intentionally files cases in "ACLU friendly districts": They often times take "establishment clause" cases in districts where activist federal court judges are more…
I'm sure you've all watched the little tempest in a teapot the last few days between Arlen Specter and Dick Cheney over the NSA's wiretapping and information gathering programs. For a few minutes, it actually looked as though Specter was going to try and support the constitutional notion of checks…
Anna Diggs Taylor, come on down. You're the next contestant on Name That Activist Judge. Taylor, a Federal judge in Michigan's eastern district, has granted the plaintiffs' request for an injunction against the NSA's warrantless surveillance programs. That, of course, will mean she will immediately…
There's also lots of interesting debate going on around the legal blogosphere concerning Judge Taylor's recent ruling in the NSA lawsuit. Orin Kerr raises some interesting questions in a post at Volokh. He points out something that concerned me as well when I first read the ruling. I was not…

I find it terribley amusing - I am certain there will now be cries that this judge is a left-wing activist judge too. And simply because he ruled in a very traditionaly conservative fashion. After the Hamden ruling I got into an debate about the "liberal" make-up of SCOTUS and how the Republicans just made a lot of "mistakes" and appointed a bunch of liberals who were just acting conservative to get to SCOTUS. These folks (and many liberals do the same thing) assume that if a justice doesn't rule the way the party that appointed them wants them too then that justice is traitor. The rule of law is meaningless to those cretins.

You know. It is nice to see judges following the law instead of ruling how their parties want them to. Very, very nice.