…Between 1978 and 2004, the government submitted nearly 19,000 surveillance requests to the FISA court, which denied only four applications and granted 180 with modifications.

Despite the ridiculous ease with which FISA allows federal investigators to bypass or sidestep warrant requirements in counter-terrorism cases, as expected, the Bush regime has taken its ideological stand against the recent ruling out of Michigan, declaring the NSA warrantless wiretap program unconstitution.

In Washington, White House press secretary Tony Snow said the Bush administration “couldn’t disagree more with this ruling.”

Legal experts called the decision a major setback for Bush. “It’s a complete defeat for the Bush administration,” said Robert Sedler, a constitutional law professor at Wayne State University. “Virtually every argument they made was rejected.”

That is not good news for Bush and his cronies, but I certainly don’t expect that we’ve heard the end of it. By all accounts, this will make its way to the United States Supreme Court, and being no legal scholar, I haven’t the foggiest as to how the court might split over such a case. As a pessimist, I’m not holding my breath for a favorable outcome. Governments always and everywhere have used national crises for the expansion of the State’s power.

U.S. Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Holland, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said: “It’s disappointing that a judge would take it upon herself to disarm America during a time of war.”

The commander-in-chief himself seems to corroborate this position, stating that he “[S]trongly disagree[s] with this decision. Strongly disagree…This country of ours is at war. And we must give those whose responsibility it is to protect the United States the tools necessary to protect this country in a time of war.”

It’s become fashionable on both sides of the political spectrum lately, to refer to judges as “activists.” Notwithstanding a judge’s obvious duty (to tell the other two branches of government when they’ve stepped out of line,) a judge’s ruling is necessarily, and always, a reaction to the activism embodied by the other branch(es) of government. SCOTUS doesn’t go to the public and beg to hear cases, nor do they demand to hear certain cases. They can only ever rule on matters brought before them by the public, or another branch of the government – all of whom work for us.

Except when they’re at war. Against the rest of us.

Believe it.