Useful Idiot of the Week

Time for a new quasi-weekly feature for those who, perhaps but not necessarily unintentionally, further the cause of terrorism. Named, of course, for Lenin's description of western reporters and other western fellow travelers who furthered the cause of communism via sympathetic or favorable coverage of the Soviet Union and its policies.

This week's "winner" is Carter-appointed Federal Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who issued a ruling that the NSA's program of surveilling international calls to or from terrorists is unconstitutional. In so doing she ignored a mountain of higher court precedent that the President has the constitutional authority under Article II to order warrantless surveillance for national security purposes. The program has previously been upheld by the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Circuits, as well as the FISA Court of Review, but if you judge-shop long enough you can find somebody to rule pretty much anything.

The Sixth Circuit will surely reject this decision on appeal, but it's sad that it even has to waste its time. This decision is just am intensely partisan judge putting Democrat Party politics above the law and the interests of the country. Even the far left NYT was forced to report on the scorn which legal analysts on both sides of the aisle have heaped on the decision:

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.”

At least terrorists and their sympathizers got to celebrate briefly. As does Judge Taylor, having been named the first SarcastiPundit Useful Idiot of the Week and all that implies.

UPDATE 8/24/06: Ann Althouse has more on the quirks of decision and its implications. Money quote:

"For those who approve of the outcome, the judge’s opinion is counterproductive. It will be harder to defend upon appeal than a more careful decision. It suggests that there are no good legal arguments against the program, just petulance and outrage and antipathy toward President Bush. It helps those who have been arguing for years about result-oriented, activist judges."