18 Dec 13
3 edits
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?
18 Dec 13
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeThere is no way that the NSA police state gets nixed.
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
NONE.
You sheeple watch and see.
18 Dec 13
1 edit
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:
18 Dec 13
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeI have a sneaking suspicion that this plaintiff won't be able to satisfy the stringent standing requirements the conservative majority have been concocting recently.
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
19 Dec 13
Originally posted by whodeyProtecting commerce?
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?
19 Dec 13
Originally posted by no1marauderOkay I read the district court's opinion. Now do you want to explain your sneaking suspicion on the standing issue?
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.
19 Dec 13
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeIn 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.
Okay I read the district court's opinion. Now do you want to explain your sneaking suspicion on the standing issue?
http://scarinciattorney.com/is-the-nsa-spying-scandal-headed-to-the-supreme-court-case-likely-comes-down-to-standing/
19 Dec 13
Originally posted by no1marauderYes and that was before Edward Snowden's revelations.
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/
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeSnowden's revelations do not change standing doctrine. In a more recent case the government has claimed:
Yes and that was before Edward Snowden's revelations.
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/
19 Dec 13
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYou 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
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 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.
19 Dec 13
Originally posted by MoneyManMike(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.
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.
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.