One gets it, one doesn't, part 2

This time it's over Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's smackdown of Bush's illegal wiretapping program. First, the New York Times, with 'Ruling For the Law':

"But for now, with a careful, thoroughly grounded opinion, one judge in Michigan has done what 535 members of Congress have so abysmally failed to do. She has reasserted the rule of law over a lawless administration and shown why issues of this kind belong within the constitutional process created more than two centuries ago to handle them."

And big surprise, the one who doesn't get it is, once again, The Washington Post, with 'A Judicial Misfire':

"Unfortunately, the decision yesterday by a federal district court in Detroit, striking down the NSA's program, is neither careful nor scholarly, and it is hard-hitting only in the sense that a bludgeon is hard-hitting. The angry rhetoric of U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor will no doubt grab headlines. But as a piece of judicial work -- that is, as a guide to what the law requires and how it either restrains or permits the NSA's program -- her opinion will not be helpful."

Now, if you click on the very first link in my post here, and have a reading of the judge's ruling, have a looksee for yourself and see how 'helpful' it is or isn't. Now, the NYT is still on my shit list for enabling the Iraq disinformation machine, but as of late, I think they've been coming around. The WaPo, howver, time and time again, enables this corrupt administration and proves it isn't worth more than something to line your birdcage or pick up dog poop with.