Her recent decision in the eavesdropping case was a headline-grabber, to be sure, but these aren't the kind of headlines that judges like to get. Yikes.
I have only read excerpts of the opinion, so I can't speak to the whole thing, but I did find it odd, as an initial fact, that she based her decision the First Amendment and the theory that eavesdropping could "chill free speech" among those suspected of being terrorists. There seemed like so many other ways to challenge the president's conduct, so I am not sure why she focused on the 1st Amendment-- to the apparent exclusion of the FISA statute and precedent interpreting it...
No comments:
Post a Comment