Federal Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's ruling last week striking down the government's warrantless wiretapping of terrorist communications to and from the United States wasn't just inappropriate, it was dangerous.
By giving the American Civil Liberties Union nearly everything its lawsuit asked for, this power-crazed far-left judge substituted her judgment for that of the nation's commander in chief in a time of war. She could have done great damage to national security. Fortunately, the Justice Department quickly announced it would appeal Taylor's ACLU ruling and her injunction was stayed, at least for now.
In busting up the recent Islamofascist plot to blow U.S.-bound passenger jetliners out of the sky, the British government used surveillance policies that go way beyond anything this country does - or anything that President Bush has ever proposed, even in the Patriot's Act.
Yet this arrogant Jimmy Carter-appointed judge would deny the president one of the limited surveillance tools he does have to thwart terrorists. Intelligence experts believe the law she arbitrarily declared unconstitutional played a key role in U.S. cooperation with the British in breaking up the terrorists' plot.
Her 44-page decision had little to do with the U.S. Constitution or the law. Instead, she used her position as a federal judge to play politics with the war on terror, deriding it as the administration's war and suggesting that Bush was behaving more like a king than a president.
She's wrong. Bush is conducting himself like a leader trying to defend his country against dangerous enemies. But she can't see that. Like many on the far left, Taylor is in denial about the war - hating the president so much that she perceives him as a bigger threat to the nation's freedom and security than the terrorists.
The truth is it's judges like Taylor who are behaving like monarchs: arrogant, unelected know-it-alls arrogating to themselves the power to poke their nose into areas - war and politics - where the courts simply don't belong.