It figures some ignorant people would say shit like this. Afterall, the 4th amendment does say:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I'm sorry. But if the government wants to tap me...show me the warrant.

Otherwise..

[align=center]FUCK OFF BITCH!![/align]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/...retapping.html

Today, a Detroit judge ruled that Bush's use of warrantless wiretapping is unconstitutional. Here are some right-wing blogosphere reactions to that decision.

The National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez offers this all-caps headline: TERRORIST-FRIENDLY RULING wherein she simply copies and pastes the AP's story without any comment or analysis.

streiff at Red State publishes two short paragraphs of the news story and comments: 'And who says democracy can’t be a suicide pact?' Several commenters note that the judge was appointed by Jimmy Carter, while one writes, 'One of Carter's last actions to destroy this country before he was booted from office. Ugh.'

Then there's this racist comment from Ace of Spades commenter, kemperman:

Not only is she a Carter appointee, she is Black. Want to bet she was admitted to Yale on a Minority set a side? Maybe she's related to Conners, the other Black nut from Mo Town.

Over at the Jawa report, you'll find this:

lets hope the first bomb that comes here is dropped on this judges head. what a stupidm move. i cannot believe she would do this. she needs to be put out of office immediately.

frank la may

Kin Preistap of Wizbang declares:

This is terrible news for our national security. The NSA's terrorist surveillance program was instrumental in stopping the British terrorists from blowing up airliners over the Atlantic Ocean.

What the WSJ editorial she links to actually says is this:

We don't yet know how the plot was foiled, but surely part of the explanation was crack surveillance work by British authorities.

Yet, the editorial then goes on to slam Democrats, of course, as being pro-terrorist.

Over at Free Republic commenter Argus's conclusion: 'The judge agrees with the ACLU in wanting us all dead.'

Chad at the Kuru Lounge, 'It is just irritating that a Judge is such a f***ing moron.'

Rick Ballard of Flares into Darkness:

She'll be smacked down on appeal very quickly but she managed to grab a headline - which is the sole purpose in this fraudulent exercise.

Here is the opinion in all its stunning ignorance - try and follow the tortured logic involving the repudiation of the governments claim of state secrets. It gives new meaning to 'risible'.

AJStrata at the Strata-Sphere piles on with the expected fearmongering.

Remember the UK Bomb Plot foiled last week? Remember how phone calls and money transfers from Pakistan to the UK helped expose the plot details and the fact we were days away from its implementation. Recall how all the lefties from Lamont on have claimed America cannot be allowed to monitor terrorist communications with their associates here in the US and monitor their financial transfers to detect and stop the next 9-11. Well hold on folks, but another unelected judge has decided Terrorists need protection because we may listen in on their calls to the Holiday Inn reservation line and that risk is more dire than 3,000 + people dying in an attack (more hear at WaPo).

And, from the ever rabid Debbie Schlussel:

I figured Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, a 73-year-old Jimmy Carter appointee, would have the chutzpah to overturn the NSA wiretaps and rule in favor of the ACLU and its raft of Islamist, America-hating plaintiffs. And she did not disappoint my low expectations of her.

She seems to hate America and fairness almost as much as the Plaintiffs do. She certainly hates a fair, impartial Judiciary. It's not just that she's a shameless liberal who always allows her politics to enter into her decisions. It's that she's so shameless she improperly interferes with cases that are not even hers.
more...

So, in summary, not one of those right-wing blogs I visited offered anything that even begins to resemble an actual analysis of the judge's decision. Instead, they've collectively concluded that she's a black, Carter-appointed, terrorist-appeasing liberal who has now put the lives of all Americans at risk and who maybe should be killed. And, further, the Democrats are responsible for the whole thing.

I need a shower.
Great Spirit Reviewed by Great Spirit on . Right-Wing Reactions to the Warrantless Wiretapping Decision It figures some ignorant people would say shit like this. Afterall, the 4th amendment does say: Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I'm sorry. But if the government wants to tap Rating: 5