A kinder view of the NSA decision

While researching a reply to Barnum's Baileywick, I ran across a University of Chicago Law School faculty member who more-or-less heaps praise on the decision of Judge Anna Diggs Taylor.
Geof Stone wrote:

Regular readers of the University of Chicago Law School Faculty Blog will not be surprised to learn that I applaud Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's August 17 decision declaring President Bush's NSA surveillance program unlawful. Judge Taylor ruled that the President's secret directive to the NSA to engage in warrantless electronic surveillance of telephone calls and emails involving American citizens on American soil violates both the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and the Constitution. On several occasions, I have posted entries on this site arguing for those conclusions (read more)

The first three comments (there are only three thus far) lay emphasis on the lack of solid reasoning in Judge Taylor's opinion.

Hugh Hewitt has noted that no Democratic Party leader has criticized the decision.
See Hewitt's blog post, Any Vote For Any Democrat Is A Vote Against Victory And A Vote For Vulnerability.

It's early. Maybe some prominent Democrats will speak out against the decision.

One interesting trend (which came up during a segment of Hewitt's radio show featuring Fred Barnes and Mort Kondracke) is that Democrats are applauding the decision while also saying that they support the wiretaps--it's just that they think the way Bush did the wiretaps is illegal. This reasoning seems to implicitly concede the administration's argument that surveillance of enemy forces is an inherent aspect of war powers. These few Democrats are saying that it is a great idea to proceed with a program like that of the NSA. Unfortunately, they forgot to specify that when granting Bush war powers to oppose terrorism, and Bush is presumed not to possess such powers unless the Congress gives a specific OK.