Friday, August 18, 2006


I've just been reading up on the Michigan wire-tapping ruling and the injunction that accompanied the ruling (both pdf). It's a sad day when a government has to be told that 'there are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution.'

According to the BBC, 'the judge's ruling is on hold' until the Government appeals it (also, the NYT). I notice, however, that further down the NYT's article (which cover's President Bush's remarks on the case), the reporter says that 'the government said it would ask Judge Taylor to stay her order at the hearing on Sept. 7.' I wonder did she do that? If she did, can an signed injunction simply be shelved?

Since the Administration is almost certainly going to lose the case, but not definitively until it reaches the Supreme Court (barring a spectacular departure from two centuries of jurisprudence), are they going to be allowed keep the programme going until then? Or will the injunction stand?

Update: That last paragraph isn't very well put is it? Let's try that again! I think the administration is going to lose the case (because they cannot refute the key constitutional and legislative arguments on the limited scope of FISA and the limited powers of the Presidency). Stop. Also, I am wondering whether an injunction can be waived during a long series of appeals. One point isn't exactly related to the other!

No comments: