Judge rules NSA unconstitutional

Has everyone read that a federal judge ruled that the NSA activity is more than likely unconstitutional? This is similar to the ruling on Obamacare when a federal judge ruled it unconstitutional but then had judge Roberts on the Supreme Court change the legislation into a tax to make it Constitutional.

What I loved is how the judge said that it did not really matter how he ruled because this would wind up with SCOTUS anyway.

So how will the statist stooges make this mess Constitutional like they did Obamacare?



Speculations?

I have not read the district court's opinion yet. However, based on the votes in US v. Jones, I think Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer, and Ginsberg will affirm the district court.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/10-1259

Originally posted by MoneyManMike
I have not read the district court's opinion yet. However, based on the votes in US v. Jones, I think Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer, and Ginsberg will affirm the district court.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/10-1259

There is no way that the NSA police state gets nixed.

NONE.

You sheeple watch and see.

Originally posted by whodey
So how will the statist stooges make this mess Constitutional like they did Obamacare?

Like this: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/428/543

Christ. This reminds me of a typical RHP debate:

http://www.cnn.com/video/standard.html?/video/us/2013/12/17/erin-panel-klayman-toobin-nsa-plaintiff-argues-with-lemon.cnn&hpt=hp_t2&from_homepage=yes&video_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

--------

Edit, this is a better link: YouTube

Originally posted by MoneyManMike
I have not read the district court's opinion yet. However, based on the votes in US v. Jones, I think Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer, and Ginsberg will affirm the district court.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/10-1259

I have a sneaking suspicion that this plaintiff won't be able to satisfy the stringent standing requirements the conservative majority have been concocting recently.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I have a sneaking suspicion that this plaintiff won't be able to satisfy the stringent standing requirements the conservative majority have been concocting recently.

Care to explain?

Originally posted by MoneyManMike
Care to explain?

You need to read the District Court's opinion first; standing was disputed by the government based on recent SCOTUS opinions. The Judge reached it on grounds I don't think the Scalias and Aliotos of the world will accept.

Originally posted by whodey
Has everyone read that a federal judge ruled that the NSA activity is more than likely unconstitutional? This is similar to the ruling on Obamacare when a federal judge ruled it unconstitutional but then had judge Roberts on the Supreme Court change the legislation into a tax to make it Constitutional.

What I loved is how the judge said that it did not re ...[text shortened]... the statist stooges make this mess Constitutional like they did Obamacare?



Speculations?

Protecting commerce?

Originally posted by no1marauder
You need to read the District Court's opinion first; standing was disputed by the government based on recent SCOTUS opinions. The Judge reached it on grounds I don't think the Scalias and Aliotos of the world will accept.

Okay I read the district court's opinion. Now do you want to explain your sneaking suspicion on the standing issue?

Originally posted by MoneyManMike
Okay I read the district court's opinion. Now do you want to explain your sneaking suspicion on the standing issue?

In Clapper v. Amnesty Intl. USA, the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs, which included attorneys and human rights, labor, legal, and media organizations, lacked standing to bring a suit challenging the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which authorized electronic surveillance targeting non-U.S. persons abroad. The justices specifically rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that they had suffered injury in fact because there was a reasonable likelihood that their communications with their foreign contacts will be intercepted under the wiretapping program.

http://scarinciattorney.com/is-the-nsa-spying-scandal-headed-to-the-supreme-court-case-likely-comes-down-to-standing/

Originally posted by no1marauder
In Clapper v. Amnesty Intl. USA, the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs, which included attorneys and human rights, labor, legal, and media organizations, lacked standing to bring a suit challenging the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which authorized electronic surveillance targeting non-U.S. persons abroad. The justices specifically rejected the plai ...[text shortened]... ey.com/is-the-nsa-spying-scandal-headed-to-the-supreme-court-case-likely-comes-down-to-standing/

Yes and that was before Edward Snowden's revelations.

Originally posted by MoneyManMike
Yes and that was before Edward Snowden's revelations.

Snowden's revelations do not change standing doctrine. In a more recent case the government has claimed:

Because the ACLU cannot prove that any of its employees were surveilled under the program, they have no right to sue under a legal concept known as standing.

“Indeed, the chances that their metadata will be used or reviewed in a query are so speculative that they lack Article III standing to seek the injunctive relief requested in their July 2 letter,” the government wrote.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/07/spygate-snooping-standing/

Originally posted by no1marauder
Snowden's revelations do not change standing doctrine. In a more recent case the government has claimed:

Because the ACLU cannot prove that any of its employees were surveilled under the program, they have no right to sue under a legal concept known as standing.

“Indeed, the chances that their metadata will be used or reviewed in a query are so spe ...[text shortened]... r,” the government wrote.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/07/spygate-snooping-standing/

You are referring to ACLU v. Clapper. The district court has not ruled on the preliminary injunction yet. https://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-v-clapper-challenge-nsa-mass-phone-call-tracking

You merely cited the government's argument.

Although Snowden's revelations do not change the standing doctrine, they do change the facts relied upon by the Supreme Court in the Clapper case.

Originally posted by MoneyManMike
You are referring to ACLU v. Clapper. The district court has not ruled on the preliminary injunction yet. https://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-v-clapper-challenge-nsa-mass-phone-call-tracking

You merely cited the government's argument.

Although Snowden's revelations do not change the standing doctrine, they do change the facts relied upon by the Supreme Court in the Clapper case.

(Shrug) That's the argument that will be presented to the SCOTUS in a couple of years. Based on their prior standing cases, they will most likely accept it IMO.

In Clapper the very likely probability that plaintiff's actual communications would be intercepted was found to be insufficient to grant standing. That degree of possible intrusion isn't even present here. It's possible Alioto could flip given his comments in the other case, but I doubt it; in general the conservatives have used standing doctrine to avoid such difficult questions.