Judicial Activist or Drama Queen

I vote drama queen.

A federal judge who has criticized the Bush administration's handling of the war on terrorism has resigned from a special court that has authority over approving electronic surveillance and searches of terrorism suspects, court officials confirmed Wednesday.

The move by Judge James Robertson came shortly after disclosures that the National Security Agency had been monitoring international phone calls and other communications of hundreds of Americans since Sept. 11 without seeking the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Robertson, who submitted his resignation from the 11-person tribunal Monday, continues to sit on the U.S. District Court here.

The Washington Post -— citing unnamed associates of the judge who were familiar with his decision to step down -— reported Wednesday that Robertson privately had expressed deep concern that the NSA surveillance program, which was personally authorized by President Bush in 2002, was legally questionable and may have tainted the court's work.

Tainted the court's work is kind of interesting. I thought judges dealt with data from various questionable sources all the time and part of their job was to rule on the admissibility of that information. Obviously, any information gained without warrant or good faith would not be allowed.

I wonder if there is a concern that I'm not seeing here. Is there an issue with using illegally obtained information to obtain a warrant? That almost sounds plausible.

In any case, this still has a strong odor of politics. It this judge was so concerned, why didn't he withdraw back when the allowance was made for the surveillance? His actions now make me very suspect of his integrity on the topic. Withdrawal at this point looks to be protestation with political purpose.