Chris At Home

My eyes glaze over when I read this stuff. The NSA surveillance program was ruled unconstitutional. The ruling will be appealed and I don't see how the Administration won't win eventually. For all your analysis needs, see:
Volokh 1, 2, 3, hell just keep scrolling. This definitely doesn't make the lawyers' eyes glaze.

Powerline:

Consistent with unanimous precedent in the Federal Courts of Appeal, I would expect the 6th Circuit to reverse Judge Taylor's ruling and uphold the NSA program. That's a year or more off, however, and in the meantime the ACLU and the Democrats got the headlines they wanted from one of their own.

The best post: discrimination against virgins.

Update: Better post on the ruling:

If it had been submitted by a student in my second year legal writing class at the University of St. Thomas Law School, it would have earned a failing grade.

On the issue of the legality of warrantless interception of enemy communications, for example, it is entirely conclusory. It does not address precedent. It assumes its conclusion, essentially framing the issue as whether the president can break the law. It simply asserts that the NSA eavesdropping program is "obviously in violation of the Fourth Amendment" -- apparently because it is warrantless. (Wrong.) She sagely observes that the "President of the United States is himself created by that same Constitution" -- you know, the one with the Fourth Amendment that she apparently thinks requires warrants in all cases.