"The Government appears to argue here that, pursuant to the penumbra of
Constitutional language in Article II, and particularly because the President is
designated Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, he has been granted the
inherent power to violate not only the laws of the Congress but the First and
Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, itself.
We must first note that the Office of the Chief Executive has itself been created, with its powers, by the Constitution. There are no hereditary Kings in America and no power not created by the Constitution. So all "inherent power" must derive from that Constitution."
She didn't say that the government couldn't conduct wiretaps. She didn't say that the NSA couldn't go after terrorists or drug dealers. She didn't rule against anything except the defiance of a legal law in the US.
This is not a "victory for Al-Qaida." This is a victory for The Constitution and for the people of America.
...it is important to note that if the court were to deny standing based on the
unsubstantiated minor distinctions drawn by Defendants, the President's actions
in warrantless wiretapping, in contravention of FISA, Title II, and the First
and Fourth amendments, would be immunized from judicial scrutiny. It was never
the intent of the Framers to give the President such unfettered control,
particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly
enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The three separate branches of government were
developed as a check and balance for one another. It is within the court's duty
to ensure that power is never condensed into a single branch of government."