California Conservative

Ann Aiken, a judge appointed by Bill Clinton, has ruled parts of the Patriot Act are unconstitutional:

Two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow secret wiretapping and searches without a showing of probable cause, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the Patriot Act, “now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment.”

Judge Aiken should dust off the law books. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches. Court after court has ruled that warrantless searches are constitutional. If her ruling stands the appeals process, it would cripple the intelligence community’s ability to surveil.

Let’s be blunt about something: It’s time that we junked FISA. In the past, ConLaw professors have said that it’s unconstitutional. Let’s test that theory. Let’s file a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality. Let’s do something so judges like Ann Aiken can’t write opinions like this:

“For over 200 years, this Nation has adhered to the rule of law, with unparalleled success. A shift to a Nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised,” she wrote.

The reality is that jurists have recognized the legitimate right of warrantless surveillances. Judge Aiken should’ve read this post by Powerline’s John Hinderaker before making her ruling. Had she read it and taken it to heart, she wouldn’t have ruled the way she did.

It isn’t a stretch to say that Judge Aiken is simply another activist judge ruling the way she thinks the Constitution should say rather than on what it does say. In that respect, she’s no different than Anna Diggs-Taylor, who made a similar ruling last year.

The bad news for serious people is that, whereas Diggs-Taylor’s ruling was overturned by the Sixth District appellate court, the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals will hear the appeal to Aiken’s ruling.

As usual, the liberal idiots are out in force talking about the supposedly shameful record that the Bush administration has on civil liberties:

Garrett Epps, a constitutional law expert at the University of Oregon, said the ruling adds to the poor record that the Bush administration has piled up in defending the Patriot Act.

“It’s embarrassing,” Epps said. “It represents another judicial repudiation of this administration’s terrorist surveillance policies.”

I’d argue differently. What’s embarrassing is the judiciary’s acting to blind us in a time of war. What’s embarrassing is a judiciary that is so activist that it willfully ignores precedent. What’s embarrassing are jurists like Ms. Aiken and Ms. Diggs-Taylor. What’s embarrassing are professors like Dr. Epps, who let ideology cloud their judgment.

This ruling tells us why presidential elections matter so much. If we don’t elect a president who believes in the strict constructionist approach, our ability to detect terrorists in our midst will be greatly hampered.

Technorati Tags: Ann Aiken, Bill+Clinton, Anna Diggs-Taylor, Jimmy Carter, Judicial Activism, Patriot Act, FISA, Fourth Amendment, Constitution, Ninth Circus, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

This entry was posted on Friday, September 28th, 2007 at 7:36 am and is filed under 9th Circuit, ACLU, Author: Gary Gross, Election 2008, Intel, Judiciary, Liberals, W. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.