Judge Strikes Down Part of Patriot Act

[maddezmom]

Source: AP

NEW YORK (AP) - A federal judge struck down parts of the revised USA Patriot Act on Thursday, saying investigators must have a court's approval before they can order Internet providers to turn over records without telling customers.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero said the government orders must be subject to meaningful judicial review and that the recently rewritten Patriot Act ``offends the fundamental constitutional principles of checks and balances and separation of powers.''

The American Civil Liberties Union had challenged the law, complaining that it allowed the FBI to demand records without the kind of court order required for other government searches.



Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6901261,00.html

[poverlay]

1. YES! FINALLY! n/t

[Lone_Star_Dem]

2. Yes!

Score one for our side! :woohoo:

[Cha]

3. And who were the STUPIDS who

signed off on this bullshit for our Nation? Traitors.

[Oldenuff]

53. Who signed up for this?

All our dem "frontrunners" support the (un)Patriot(ic) Act,but it took a judge to do the right thing.

Sad state of affairs when it takes a judge to do what our elected representatives should be doing.

[Cha]

59. I know..rhetorical ,,and thanks

for highlighting it!

[cannabis_flower]

66. Anyone have links...

To the records of who voted for the original Patriot Act and this Revised Patriot Act. I'd like to know which Democrats voted for it and which voted against it. I'm pretty sure Kucinich voted against both of them but who else voted against them and who voted for them?

[Oldenuff]

68. Here is that link

http://www.2decide.com/table.htm

[havocmom]

4. Take that good news to the Greatest Page!

:woohoo:

This and the news that FEC won't regulate blogging is getting the day off to a better start.

[corkhead]

5. why does that judge hate our freedums?

:sarcasm:

[indepat]

6. Almost everything this administration does offends the fundamental constitutional principles

of checks and balance and separation of powers: to wit, why do they hate America and, more importantly, why do tens of millions of Amurikkkans eat up every un-American thing this administration does lock, stock and barrel?

[BlooInBloo]

7. Good news is nice.

[sutz12]

8. And why doesn't the American press carry this?

:shrug:

[AllyCat]

25. I wondered the same thing. I suppose they aren't allowed to report it.

[caduceus111]

40. Here...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070906/ap_on_re_us/patriot_act_lawsuit

[otherlander]

51. I think I heard someone on NPR talking about it.

[kestrel91316]

9. Give this judge a medal, and a really good bodyguard, too.

And make sure he stays out of small planes.

[AllyCat]

26. Now that Gonzo is gone, who will fire him and replace him with a

good solid, Bushevik crony?

[yodermon]

10. and the SC will overturn this ruling with a flick of tis forked tongue. n/t

[truth2power]

15. Of course! Nothing will change. Bush will continue to ignore

the law (God's got his back, don'tcha know) and if it goes to the SC they'll make it ok for the emperor.

[L. Coyote]

30. So, is this why Bush crys on God's shoulder?

[treestar]

11. Why does he hate America?

:sarcasm:

Will this show up in the U.S. M$M? At least Faux News can condemn this as a "defeat in the war on terror."

[JohnnyLib2]

12. Recommended. DeBushification in action!

[Solly Mack]

13. that's a start

[aquart]

14. Put this judge on the SCOTUS.

Can you imagine? He believes in "fundamental constitutional principles".

[cutlassmama]

46. Yes!!! n/t

[va4wilderness]

16. Good! It's about time!

I guess Shrubbery & Co could just ignore this, tho.

[madrchsod]

17. background on the judge

http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=1416
The Robing Room

http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/PR00034.html
Senator Schumer Website: Press Room

[hang a left]

18. I am hoping that there were other parts of the bill that he found

negated constitutional principles.

[snappyturtle]

19. YES! nt

[lonestarnot]

20. Woot!

:woohoo: Yes! ACLU needs money!

[rodeodance]

22. I am looking for this in US papers----it is evening in UK-yet Guadian gets out good story

[L. Coyote]

32. Join the ACLU

http://www.aclu.org/

[Megahurtz]

21. Good.

Strike down this intrusive Bullshit. :woohoo:

[MilesColtrane]

23. What if the A.T.&T. and other ISPs aren't taking orders, but simply complying..

.. freely with requests?

Seems like they didn't have to be ordered to build secret rooms were all domestic traffic funnels directly to the NSA.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

27. YES!! And, now, Congress should not ignore this -- they should revise or knock out --

It's up to Congress to respond --

[Mrspeeker]

28. And this story comes from the UK LOL

Where is MSNBC, CBS, FOX, ABC, and ect....Oh thats right there busy trying to rewrite history with there latest blitz of fabricated hour shows dedicated to outright lies and misinformation on the events leading up to 911 and 911 and after 911.

"If you can't tell the truth...Just make it the truth"

[L. Coyote]

29. Watch Bush appeal this one, using taxpayer funds to fight the ACLU. K&R

[tom_paine]

31. Oh, PUH-LEEZE. Is anyone hear naive enough to think some judge can tell the Imperials

what to do?

Really? You think that?

:rofl:

Haven't you seen the Bushies ignore laws and verdicts not just on the sly, but shoving the big old shitpile in everyone's face and DARING them to STOP Caesar from doign whatever the fuck Caesar wants to do whenever he want to do it?

I cannot even believe for a moment that this judge's word, so weak and puny and not backl up by anything...to a monstrous dicttaor who understands only force, that is, will for one moment, one NANOSECOND, alter the policies of the Bush Tyranny?

:rofl:

The only thing more embarrasing than being an Imperial Subject of Amerika under Herr Bushler is watching these puny fools playing at being judges or legislators or anything lese that only exists as window-dressing and lies (like The Rule of Law) in Amerika.

Face it, as Hitler was the embodiment of the 1930s Germans darkest hearts, so is Bush a true refelction of the dark heart of the Imperial Subjects of Amerika, we who gave up our right to be free so long ago that it is almost surprising that it took this long for som tyrant to come and take us over.

[L. Coyote]

33. Unless I missed something, we still have rules and laws, three branches of the gov

and court rulings are still considered real.

Of course, that's how Bush became the Resident? :rofl:

In the final analysis, the trump card for the Judicial Branch is the Constitution. Laws cannot negate the Constitution.

[tom_paine]

39. The 2000 ruling was "pulling up the ladder (of Law) behind them"

Never forget, in the final analysis, laws are just compacts between people's. For Littl;e Nobodies like us, those lawful prohibitions are backed up by force (cops, jail, etc.), but among the Ruling Class, they are much more of a tacit agreement to play within some sort of boundaires.

A Caesar, a Hitler, a Bush, all of them realize that this is, in the end, made of nothing except the beliefs of the people hodling the system together. Read your history about the various "games of chicken" that Caesar and Hitler played with their respective legislature, DARING the Reichstag or the Roman Senate to stop them.

But, when one stops playing by the rules, as Hitler, Caesar, and Bush did, then there is only one "lawful question" remaining:

Can you stop me from doing this? Can you physically stop me? Prevent my henchmen from making it happen? Arrest me and carry off in chains? No?

Well then, now I am going to do this thing, and it is now "legal" because there's precedent..I did it.

That is how your Nazis and Bushies think. Words with nothing to back them up are measningless to tyrants, ask the German Jews, ask Cicero, who's head wound up on a pike for his sprited defense of Liberty against Caesar and Tyranny.

Is a court ruling real if no one is found to enforce it? Does the law have any strength if there is no one to enforce it?

Sure, that ruling is real. Now WHO, exactly is going to go over there and MAKE THEM STOP. And, no, I am not talking about violence but the law. Couple of FBI guys going to go over and make sure it's shut down? Capiol Hill police? Nope, the Bushies will say they stopped, and...that's it, we'll have to trust them.

How, exactly, does this judge enforce his ruling?

Remember, the Bushies have made a conscious descision to disregard the law. Everyone else is playing as if we are still living in freedom, in the Old American Republic (1776-2000, RIP). We aren't.

You should read Suetonius' "Twelve Caesars", Tacitus "Annals" and "I, Claudius" which is a piece of historical fiction more history than fiction.

Understand how the law has no force if no one is there to enforce it against tyrants who "push the envelope" which is a polite way to say that have pulled out of the compact tthat binds civilized nations. See how the Roman and Weimar Republic died as soon as it became clear they were in this condition.

It is a condition that Amerika is now in.

I stand by my words. The Bushies MAY make a show of obeying, although it is so clear they can shamelessly violate whatever laws they wish, especially the Inner Circle, it would surprise me if they just ignored the rule or offered a rationale that they didn't even bother to have make sense.

In either case, if you expect the words of a judge ("How many divisions does this judge have?" I imagine Buhsler asking as Hitler did before him of the Pope) to have any effect on a murderous, monstrous tyrant, you are VERY naive.

[Supersedeas]

34. the Judiciary is finally waking up -- now if we could only wake up the ABA

[cosmicone]

35. yay!!!! n/t

[Hosnon]

36. I hope the appellate judge agrees and that the Supreme Court does not

grant certiorari (and if it does, that it agrees, as well).

Then we'll be gettin' somewhere!

Edit: Content and style.

[krispos42]

37. Not a peek on CNN.com

shocking, I say.

[MannyGoldstein]

38. Once Again, I'd Like To Thank Our Founders

Who saw fit to have an independent Judiciary as one last firewall to block tyrants and stupid voters.

[PianoBlack]

41. YES!

This is is amazing! In the last 2 months amazing things have been happening in the world of politics! This is absolutely amazing! Just another point that the world is finally going back to the way it should be!

[Deep13]

42. Goddamn activist judges! How dare they impose...

...the plain meaning of the 4th Amendment onto an act of Congress that no one actually read?!

[HughMoran]

43. Now THIS is what we should be talking about here

The gov't is secretly spying on us with little to no oversight, and we are content to argue about whether it's OK for folks to give each other BJ's in airport bathrooms :D

[redacted]

44. HELL YEAH!

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Raejeanowl]

45. Ya-Hoo!

I like this guy.

[Ninja Jordan]

47. It takes a Puerto Rican-born judge to salvage the American Constitution.

Judge Marrero is from Puerto Rico.

[Xipe Totec]

65. And it takes the British press to report it n/t

[truthisfreedom]

48. It's idiotic for bushco to force through unconstitutional laws anyway. All it does is let the bad

guys get away in the long run.

[lips]

49. It's about feckin...

...TIME to impeach...

That photo-chop looks like it'll produce welts. Still, this feels like slinging sand at a blooming tank.

[AtomicKitten]

50. Michael Savage is having a stroke about this.

I just heard him on the radio going off on the liberals packing the courts. He said Hillary Clinton appointed Judge Marrero (who knew HRC had such magical abilities?). He said nobody in a black robe can tell Junior what to do, especially in a suit brought by the communist ACLU.

Too funny.

[BootinUp]

52. A short lived victory

the RW 5 of SCOTUS can't wait to get their hands on this.

[lovuian]

54. Alleluia

Thanks Judge

[marmar]

55. The entire Patriot Act needs to be doused in gasoline and torched.....

:nuke:

[ooglymoogly]

56. Why stop at just part kn

[mvd]

57. There are still some honorable judges left

All of them nominated by Clinton. What worries me is that it gets to the Supreme Court. Justice Kennedy seems more liberal on this than other social issues, but will he be partisan on what would be a big defeat for Bush? He very well could be.

[Ninja Jordan]

60. The case seemingly has to go through the Court of Appeals (2d Cir.) first.

That Court may dispose of this case in such away that the Supreme Court doesn't grant cert. I doubt it, though. I think Kennedy-Breyer-Souter-Ginsberg-Stevens would be with us on this issue. It'd be interesting to see, obviously. Both sides (U.S. and ACLU) would definitely be arguing to Kennedy.

[lvx35]

58. Ah! The ACLU re-earns my top respect.

It seemed like they were getting a little distracted from their core mission for awhile. Great news!

[Vidar]

61. Applauding the courageous Judge Marrero, who stands up to our

tyrant, while Congress runs & hides.

[eridani]

62. Thanks for the daily uplift! n/t

[dailykoff]

63. Six years later, somebody finally gets a clue.

Well better late than never.

:thumbsup:

[Senator]

64. K&R(#100)

[Bake]

67. A lifetime appointment gives the judge the freedom to do the right thing

Our "representatives" are subject to the whims of politics, which frequently causes their spines to turn up missing! The federal judge has no such affliction (ideally, that is).

Kudos to this judge! Now to see if the Court of Appeals and SCOTUS have the spine to do the right thing as well.

Bake

[LWolf]

69. I am thankful that

there are still Democrats in Congress who work to protect, rather than undermine, our Constitution. Dennis Kucinich on this ruling:

<snip>

Kucinich, the only Democratic candidate who voted against the original act in 2001 and its reauthorization early last year, said yesterday’s ruling “demonstrates that no official and no agency is above the law, and no member of the House or Senate who passed this law can escape responsibility for the Constitutional violations that have resulted.”


“It is a matter of public record that the White House and the Justice Department have no respect for the Constitution or the rights and freedoms of Americans,” Kucinich said, “but this ruling also makes it clear that some members of Congress have been willing accomplices to these Constitutional abuses; and they have a responsibility to explain their votes.”

<snip>

“Congress passed an unconstitutional and unconscionable law in 2001, and then, failing to recognize its mistake, re-authorized the law last year,” Kucinich said. “What makes this situation even more dumbfounding is that five Democrats who voted in the U.S. Senate to support that unconstitutional law are now asking to be elected President.”

Kucinich concluded, “If my colleagues had made the right decision in 2001 and in 2006, they would be in a better position today to claim they have the leadership, experience, and wisdom to be President. Their records, however, on this and other issues, such as the war in Iraq, tell a very different story.”

http://www.dennis4president.com/go/newsroom/court-ruling-against-the-patriot-act-is-a-victory-for-the-constitution/

[suffragette]

70. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

So I'll just have to give a manual K&R here and thanks to a judge who still believes in the rule of law and the Constitution.