Article

2005-12-21 Home Front: Politix

Resigned FISA Judge a Committed Clintonista

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2005-12-21 09:52|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 It warms my heart to see Republicans (or at least fair press) fighting back against the constant and unending democrat sally of lies.

Posted by bigjim-ky 2005-12-21 10:02|| 2005-12-21 10:02|| Front Page Top

#2 "has resigned from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court - "apparently" in a fit of conscience over news"

...or maybe a guilty conscience??? random thoughts and such.. just thinking out loud here... the leak had to come from somewhere...

Posted by TomAnon 2005-12-21 10:09|| 2005-12-21 10:09|| Front Page Top

#3 If he was hearing cases in the FISA, wouldn't he have been aware of the NSA's monitoring long before the story broke?

Posted by Desert Blondie 2005-12-21 10:11|| http://azjetsetchick.blogspot.com]">[http://azjetsetchick.blogspot.com] 2005-12-21 10:11|| Front Page Top

#4 If the reports are correct, Judge Robertson's conscience has evolved considerably since the days when he was dismissing one criminal case after another against cronies of Bill Clinton - the man who appointed him to the bench in 1994.

The Dimmirat takeover attempt is under way. the DNC, Corrupt judges, NYSlimes, MSM et all are pulling out the stops for impeachment.

What they could't win by ballot they're going to to try and steal by a Coup D'etat.

Posted by Red Dog 2005-12-21 10:11|| 2005-12-21 10:11|| Front Page Top

#5 The press is breathlessly reporting that U.S. District Judge James Robertson has resigned from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court - "apparently" in a fit of conscience over news that President Bush was using the National Security Agency to monitor the telephone conversations of terrorists.

According to a blurb in the local paper, no explantion was given when the resignation was submitted. The idea that this resignation was/is a protest is coming from "two sources".

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-12-21 10:13|| 2005-12-21 10:13|| Front Page Top

#6 a little more..cBS

The Post said Robertson, without providing an explanation, stepped down from the FISA court in a letter late Monday to Chief Justice John Roberts. He did not resign his parallel position as a federal district judge.

Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said early Wednesday she had no information to offer on the matter.

Robertson was appointed a federal judge by President Clinton in 1994. Chief Justice William Rehnquist later appointed Robertson to the FISA court as well.

Robertson has been critical of the Bush administration's treatment of detainees at the U.S. naval prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, most memorably in a decision that sidetracked the president's system of military tribunals to put some detainees on trial.

Some Republicans have joined a chorus of Democrats who say Congress must investigate whether the president was within the law to allow the super-secret National Security Agency to eavesdrop, reports CBS News correspondent Thalia Assuras.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/21/politics/main1150626.shtml

Posted by Red Dog 2005-12-21 10:23|| 2005-12-21 10:23|| Front Page Top

#7 Bill Kristol

context:
...That is why the president uniquely swears an oath--prescribed in the Constitution--to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Implicit in that oath is the Founders' recognition that, no matter how much we might wish it to be case, Congress cannot legislate for every contingency, and judges cannot supervise many national security decisions. This will be especially true in times of war.

This is not an argument for an unfettered executive prerogative. Under our system of separated powers, Congress has the right and the ability to judge whether President Bush has in fact used his executive discretion soundly, and to hold him responsible if he hasn't. But to engage in demagogic rhetoric about "imperial" presidents and "monarchic" pretensions, with no evidence that the president has abused his discretion, is foolish and irresponsible.

Posted by Red Dog 2005-12-21 10:40|| 2005-12-21 10:40|| Front Page Top

00:05 DeltaJuliet
00:00 Paul Moloney
23:18 Captain America
23:07 Classical_Liberal
23:07 Besoeker
23:02 twobyfour
23:01 Skidmark
22:53 Rafael
22:48 Skidmark
22:47 Glenmore
22:46 Old Marine
22:45 Skidmark
22:41 DMFD
22:37 Danking70
22:35 mjslack
22:34 Barbara Skolaut
22:28 jules 2
22:28 trailing wife
22:19 49 pan
22:13 Thomosh Gravinter9151
22:08 mhw
21:38 Bobby
21:34 Besoeker
21:26 Rafael