If not quite from the grave, the decision by one of Jimmy Carter's judicial appointees, striking down the NSA terrorist surveillance program, was an unwelcome blast from past. Call it Carter's Revenge. Malaise Redux. The spirit of Desert One lives.
That this was a political decision more than a legal one is evidenced by the intemperate language of the opinion itself: "There are no hereditary kings in America," harumphed Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the United States District Court in Detroit, in a case filed by the ACLU. [An exception to Taylor's no-hereditary-kings rule: the Sulzberger dynasty that is . . . the New York Times. Hat tip to NB poster Jack Bauer. See details in comments below.]
In its editorial this morning, Ruling for the Law, the NY Times predictably applauded the decision, calling it "good news," lauding it as "careful" and "thoroughly grounded." Engaging in some intemperate language of its own, the Times claims that Judge Taylor "has reasserted the rule of law over a lawless administration."
We can be thankful that such a decision wasn't in effect over the last several months here or in the UK, else we might not be talking about a 'foiled' Islamist plot to blow up multiple airliners over the Atlantic.
Note: the National Review demolishes the ludicrous reasoning behind Taylor's decision.