Saturday, July 07, 2007
Obviously
This reversal by the U.S. Court of Appeals was so preordained by the law that I didn't take seriously the original judgement last year:
But never mind that the plaintiffs had no standing with the court; one of the judges also found that the charges themselves had no legal merit: Judge Batchelder finds no statutory violation of Title III or FISA.
Which has been my point all along.
CINCINNATI, July 6 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court ruled on Friday a lawsuit challenging the domestic spying program created by President George W. Bush after the Sept. 11 attacks must be dismissed, in a decision based on narrow technical grounds. The appeals court panel ruled by a 2-1 vote that the groups and individuals who brought the lawsuit, led by the American Civil Liberties Union, did not have the legal right to bring the challenge in the first place.Count on Reuters to editorialize. I love their spin describing the basic requirement for plaintiffs to have standing in an action as "narrow technical grounds". In Reuters' world, Bill Clinton enjoyed Monica Lewinsky's favours on the "narrow technical grounds" that an intern's oral ministrations to a married sitting President did not constitute a sexual encounter, at least not until the hearings started.
But never mind that the plaintiffs had no standing with the court; one of the judges also found that the charges themselves had no legal merit: Judge Batchelder finds no statutory violation of Title III or FISA.
Which has been my point all along.
