The Urban Grind

In at least 17 different cases, judges have ruled against these terrorist loving sleaze buckets, who wanted the government to tell them that evidence against their beloved clients was obtained by the NSA without a warrant.

Needless to say the lawyers are not happy.

“There is a veil of secrecy over these parts of the proceedings,” said one attorney, Marvin Miller, who filed such a motion on behalf of Ali Asad Chandia, who was convicted in Alexandria, Va., of aiding a terrorist organization in Pakistan.

Defense attorneys say they are frustrated that judges are accepting these secret briefs from the government.

“Whatever the government is saying in these secret ex parte in camera filings, it is sure clamming up a lot of judges,” said attorney Jeanne Baker, who represents Adham Amin Hassoun, a co-defendant of “dirty bomb” suspect Jose Padilla.

{snip}

Defense attorneys say the willingness of judges to accept secret briefings puts them in an unfair position.

“It short-circuits the adversary system, and it prevents the issues from being litigated,” a lawyer who has filed a motion for disclosure regarding the NSA program, Malick Ghachem, said. “I haven’t found a single judge so far who has been willing to take a serious look at this or at least let the defendants know they are taking a serious look at it.”

We’re in the middle of a war with fanatical Islamist terrorists. Why should these issues always have to litigated? And why should Americans accept having their civil liberties used against them by these terrorists and their slimey lawyers?

Continue reading here.

And it’s about time!

by Jim Kouri – CRAWFORD, TX — A federal district court judge ruled on Tuesday that a ban preventing protestors from camping and parking near President Bush’s Crawford, Texas ranch is constitutional.

Attorney David Broiles, an attorney with the Texas ACLU, sued on behalf of Cindy Sheehan and other anti-war protestors who wanted to erect campsites on the two-lane road leading to Mr. Bush’s ranch.

US District Judge Walter S. Smith had requested the demonstrators and McLennan County officials to reach a compromise less than a week ago. His ruling that county ordinances put in place last fall are constitutional came unexpectedly for the anti-war activists and their ACLU attorney.

Now if only more judges would rule against the ACLU, or better yet throw all their lawsuits out of court!

What are teachers unions good for? If you think they do anything to help the kids, or even the teachers, who are forced to pay dues, think again. The only thing they are good for is whining for more and more money, most of which they donate to politicians and left wing organizations. What’s left over is used to ensure that their fellow educrats are employed for life, no matter what.

Also, like other lefty groups, when they don’t get what they want through the state legislatures, they sue. Luckily, one judge in Oklahoma stood up to them.

An Oklahoma County judge dismissed this morning a multi-billion dollar lawsuit filed by the state’s largest teacher union against the state and legislators, according to court records and staff.

The lawsuit claimed public schools have about $3 billion of infrastructure needs the state should pay.

The lawsuit, which claimed the state?s public schools are underfunded by about $1 billion a year, was filed by the Oklahoma Education Association against the state of Oklahoma, Senate President Pro Tempore Mike Morgan and House Speaker Todd Hiett.

Joining the OEA as plaintiffs were the Western Heights, Jenks and Foyil school districts.

Oklahoma County District Court Judge Daniel Owens dismissed the lawsuit “with prejudice,” meaning it cannot be refiled.

——–

The OEA’s Odom said the group was not surprised by the ruling.

?A majority of other states who have ultimately prevailed in getting education properly funded also had to fight the same battle with the initial dismissal of their case,? Odom said. ?While we are disappointed, we also believe it is important for the Oklahoma Supreme Court to review the legal issues involved in this case prior to expending the time and energy litigating this case on the merits.?

If at first you don’t succeed, sue, and sue again. Obviously, these people don’t care that they are milking taxpayers like cows. They want their money, and they don’t want to be questioned for mis-spending it, or for the abyssmal state of the public schools.

On another note, here’s what the American Federation of Teachers has recently been up to.

A federal judge rejected atheist Michael Newdow’s lawsuit claiming that having the slogan “In God We Trust” on coins and dollar bills violated his First Amendment rights.

Considering that Newdow is a doctor and lawyer, he seems to have way too much time on his hands.

Also, why won’t he get it through his head that our whole system of government is based (or was based) on Judeo-Christian values? I mean, it’s not like anyone is forcing him to practice Judaism or Christianity.

Good for that judge!

It’s nice to know that there are some judges with integrity, who use common sense in their rulings.

A judge in San Francisco has refused bail for a Pakistani Muslim Cleric who has been accused of trying to set up a terror training camp in Lodi.

In Arizona, a federal appeals court decided not to block part of an Arizona law that denies some public benefits to illegal aliens, on the grounds that the plaintiffs had no right to sue.

This judge obviously knows the meaning of the word “illegal.” After all, why should the citizens of Arizona be milked like cows by these illegals? It would make sense that the cost to them is pretty darn prohibitive, since it’s the main entry point from Mexico. I should think the cost would be much much more than the 4.3 billion that Florida taxpayers are forking over each year for healthcare, education and incarceration costs.

What would the open borders advocates have to say about this? Racism!!! That’s what they always say when they have no other facts to back up their arguments and claims.

For a country at war, our elected representative have become quite the wimpy panty waists.

First off, several politicians have been pushing for legislation to define the status of enemy combatants at Guantanamo.

With the Pentagon under fire for the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo, Graham is working on legislation with fellow Republicans John Warner of Virginia, the Armed Services Committee chairman, and John McCain of Arizona to clarify the legal standing of people the administration calls “enemy combatants” who can be held indefinitely.

As usual they attempt to camouflage the fact that they care more about the rights of terrorists than those of innocent American citizens by bringing up the “danger” of America’s image abroad being tarnished. Why can?t these people get it through their thick heads that we shouldn?t give a rat?s behind about what the world’s socialist countries and rogue states think of us. And why can’t these whores understand that enemy combatants HAVE NO RIGHTS under the Geneva convention, and that we are well within our rights to just kill them from the get go? When German saboteurs were discovered in the U.S. out of uniform, they were lined up against a wall and shot. Why should this war be any different?

Luckily, one judge has shown unusual common sense.

A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that a Guantanamo prisoner accused of being Osama bin Laden’s bodyguard could be tried by a military tribunal, reversing a lower court decision that such a trial was unlawful and would violate his rights.

In a victory for the government, the three-judge panel said the military tribunal process at the U.S. Navy base in Cuba was the proper forum for Salim Ahmed Hamdan to be tried.

The appeals court said that ruling was wrong, and said the Geneva Conventions do not help Hamdan.

“One problem for Hamdan is that he does not fit the … definition of a ‘prisoner of war’ entitled to the protection of the convention,” Judge A. Raymond Randolph wrote in a 20-page ruling. “Another problem for Hamdan is that the 1949 Convention does not apply to al Qaeda and its members.”

Right on Judge!

Who, besides the Donks are really behind the war on Bush’s judicial nominees?

Large corporations who donate to People For The American Way. That’s who.

A copy of PFAW’s 2003 annual report examined by National Review Online lists dozens of corporations as contributors. The companies include Sony Corporation of America, the New York Times, 20th Century Fox Television (a division of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp.), Best Buy Corporation, A&E Television Network, Eastman Kodak, NBC, Home Box Office, Inc., the Hearst Corporation, Comcast Corporation, Blockbuster, Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Sotheby’s, and Conde Nast.

Wow! Seven large media properties! And to think, journalists insist they have no liberal bias.

Here’s a look at what People For The American Way, founded bymillionaire producer and left wing activist Norman Lear, is really about.

What is it with these limousine liberals???