!BREAKING: FED DISTRICT COURT RULES NSA WIRETAPPING UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

[kpete]

BREAKING: Federal District Court Rules NSA Wiretapping Program Unconstitutional



Fox News reports a federal district court in Detroit has ruled that the Bush administration’s NSA warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.

A separate federal district court in San Francisco had previously rejected the administration’s argument that the court could not hear the case due to a “state secrets” privilege. The lawsuit alleged that the NSA program violated the First and Fourth Amendments, as well as a number of federal statutes, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The defendants included AT&T and the federal government.


http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/17/nsa-unconstitutional/
Edit to fix link - thanks to all who pointed that out


Update/AP
Judge nixes warrantless surveillance By SARAH KARUSH
Associated Press Writer

DETROIT - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060817/ap_on_go_pr_wh/warrantless_surveillance

Direct link to Judge Taylor’s judgment and order for permanent injunction:
http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/eGov/taylorpdf/06%2010204.pdf

[Nickster]

1. Try this link instead.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/17/nsa-unconstitutional/

[Botany]

2. Yes!

Rule of Law

This is why bush and company want to pack the courts for their
fascist agenda.

[Cha]

94. Oh yeah, they gotta love

those fascist judges like the rehnquist five.

[SharonRB]

3. Great news, but I'm sure they'll take it to the Supremes

This is HUGH!!!!!!!!!! I'm Series!!!

[hootinholler]

84. They need a basis to appeal.

If the decision is sound and no procedural error made, there will be no appeal.

I'm no lawyer, but this is my understanding.

-Hoot

[MrCoffee]

141. Their grounds for appeal is that the program is constitutional...

what do you mean, basis for appeal? that's what their claim is gonna be. i am a lawyer, and i don't really understand what you meant.

[Laelth]

165. They'll appeal.

This is a serious Constitutional question, and it needs to be settled by the highest Court in the land. The executive branch is almost certain to appeal until the Supreme Court rules on the subject.

Kudos to Judge Anna Diggs Taylor for standing up to the "Decider" and defending the rights of the American people!

Honored to K&R.

:dem:

-Laelth

[John Gauger]

125. Why?

Why challenge when they are willing to just ignore the law? They don't care what trouble they get in, they won't stop.

[ktowntennesseedem]

142. Exactly! "So it's unconstitutional--so what!" they'll say.

Even so, a victory for democracy.

Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Drum]

170. I think that BushCo WANTS the case to get kicked to the Supremes....

so that they can get the sanction of the court FOR their warrantless fascism.
:mad:

[MrCoffee]

185. SCOTUS will affirm the district court at least 6-3

Probably more, I think Thomas will side with Scalia if he writes for the majority.

I don't know enough about Roberts and Alito to call, but, gun to my head, they probably vote to reverse.

[seemslikeadream]

4. check your link kpete

:hi:

[WilliamPitt]

5. Busted link, here's a better one

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/17/nsa-unconstitutional/

[EST]

6. The link does not work for me.

Sez-post not found.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

7. how does one spell "Y I P P E E "?

WHAT A GREAT DAY!

[file83]

106. It's also a sad day for our country...

...that we have a "President" still in power issuing unconstitutional directives. While I agree it's a good thing this judge made this ruling, there is no power behind it anymore: We live in a Dictatorship now.

Back in the old days (pre-Bush), judges in high courts made rulings (even ruled that Bush should be President) and the executive branch followed those rulings.

In BushWorld, courts can make all the rulings and judgements they want, but the Executive branch just laughs and keeps committing the crime.

[Beetwasher]

8. QUICK!! More Jon Benet Updates Or People Might Actually Hear About This!

n/t

[me b zola]

23. Yep, I just turned on cnn to see if they were covering the real news...

...and they're talking about a ten year old murder case. This will go on through the elections. :grr:

[wryter2000]

97. Frist raises JonBenet from the dead...

...Richard Allen Davis released from prison to kill her again. Photos at 11:00

[Imagevision]

120. Gonzo should be booted for failing to comply with the judges ruling

[ktowntennesseedem]

143. This just in!!! Jon Benet is still dead!!!

And so is Generalissimo Franco! (for any vintage SNL fans who were still wondering)

[kurth]

9. Stupid activist judges

The terrorists have won. Now back to our 24/7 Jon Benet story.

[Nimrod2005]

10. Can we put some people in Jail, NOW?

[Renew Deal]

70. Starting with the judge.

;)

[devilgrrl]

11. Oh those "Activist" judges! Why do they support terrorism?

:sarcasm:

Great news btw.

[earth mom]

12. Woo Hoo!

:woohoo:

[philosophie_en_rose]

13. Don't get too happy. This is just the first step.

It can easily be overturned by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.

[Oreo]

20. If it says they need to stop... it would be illegal to continue

Not that it stopped them before.

By this judgement.. they should be forced to stop the warrantless spying until an appeal goes through.
In the meantime... if they don't stop it is just more proof that the Bush regime has no problem ignoring the law and the Constitution.

[philosophie_en_rose]

27. It's definitely a good sign, but legality has never stopped Bush before.

Considering his signing statements blatantly blowing off Congress, I have no doubt that Bush would overlook even a Supreme Court judgment.

[spooky3]

24. actually it is a little better than that.

The district ct. in San Francisco also came to a similar conclusion. I think there are other district courts considering complaints along the same lines. If these courts draw the same conclusions, an appeals court is unlikely to accept the case for review.

[philosophie_en_rose]

28. True. But there are conservative district courts as well.

And until there is a definite refusal to review the case, it's still too premature for me to be excited about it.

But I'm a pessimist. I would not be surprised to see some sort of rushed and fixed review in the near future.

[spooky3]

40. I agree that people should not get too excited at this

stage.

I just meant that it is a bit more encouraging that more than one district judge has ruled against the wiretaps, than to view only the most recent decision in isolation.

[Philosoraptor]

14. Will bush care I wonder?

[SlavesandBulldozers]

87. you wonder?

lol. good one.

[Imagevision]

107. Kick this until November!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Fleshdancer]

15. Oh thank goodness SOMEONE remembers the Constitution!

Yes yes yes yes! :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[paparush]

16. Why do they hate Bush's Freedom to hate our Freedom?

[cool user name]

187. That is freakin' hilarious!

"Why do they hate Bush's Freedom to hate our Freedom?

That should be used repeatedly. (You should probably copyright that too).

:D

[Nickster]

17. Wait a minute.....doesn't doing something UnConstitutional while President

require something? Hmmmmm what was it again.....an I word......Impeachment????

[HereSince1628]

159. Actually, no. Truman's attempt to nationalize the steel industry

in order to prevent a strike during the Korean war was determined to be unconstitutional. Impeachment didn't happen, he had sufficient democrats in congress to protect him.

But then Truman didn't have Bush's track record either. This isn't THE reason to impeach * chronologically its somewhere about number 3452 but the exact number is a state secret.

[NewJeffCT]

18. Since the court is in Detroit...

I believe that means that it was probably a court where a majority of its judges were appointed by Republican presidents, if I'm not mistaken. I think only the 9th on the West Coast is still a majority of Dem appointees.

[mikelgb]

19. FUCKING JONBENET PRESS CONF JUST IN TIME

:grr:

[chat_noir]

21. Judge: Bush Surveillance Program Violates Constitution

DETROIT -- A federal judge ruled on Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves wiretapping conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries.

The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.

The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule.

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/9694856/detail.html

[rateyes]

22. I don't think the Supremes will back Bush on this one....

The administration's position on this is a DIRECT assault on the Judiciary. I'll bet most judges, even conservative ones, don't want to give up power to the administration. The Supremes realize that POTUS' come and go...they are there for life. Even Scalia wouldn't want to hand over his power to the executive branch...because the executive might someday be a Democrat...and, he won't want to allow the next Democrat to start wiretapping HIM.

[caligirl]

25. Hamdan undermines the executive case on this I thought. The

Sup's can't over rule this unless they want to reverse Hamdan. At least thats what I understood about the effect of Hamdan on the Executive.

[wryter2000]

98. Scalia will go along with *

So will his bobble-head, Thomas. Then there's Roberts and Scalito.

[sofa king]

26. I wonder how much influence US v. Reynolds had?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Reynolds

It is fitting that the first application of the State Secrets Privilege was, in fact, a total fabrication designed to protect the Air Force.

It will be interesting to see what unfair and extralegal approach the United States will take in this case now. My prediction: they'll kick it up to the kingmakers in the Supreme Court. They don't give a damn about the law anymore.

[Emit]

150. From the link to Judge Taylor’s judgment and order for permanent injunction

II. State Secrets Privilege
Defendants argue that the state secrets privilege bars Plaintiffs’ claims because Plaintiffs
cannot establish standing or a prima facie case for any of their claims without the use of state
secrets. Further, Defendants argue that they cannot defend this case without revealing state secrets.
For the reasons articulated below, the court rejects Defendants’ argument with respect to Plaintiffs’
claims challenging the TSP. The court, however, agrees with Defendants with respect to Plaintiffs’
data- mining claim and grants Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on that claim.

~snip~
The Court sustained the Government’s claim of privilege, finding the plaintiffs’ “necessity” for the
privileged information was “greatly minimized” by the fact that the plaintiffs had an available
alternative. Reynolds, 345 U.S. at 11. Moreover, the Court found that there was nothing to suggest
that the privileged information had a “causal connection with the accident” and that the plaintiffs
could “adduce the essential facts as to causation without resort to material touching upon military
secrets.” Id.

~snip~

The second line of cases deals with the exclusion of evidence because of the state secrets
privilege. In United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953), the plaintiffs were the widows of three
civilians who died in the crash of a B-29 aircraft. Id. at 3-4. The plaintiffs brought suit under the
Tort Claims Act and sought the production of the Air Force’s official accident investigation report
and the statements of the three surviving crew members. Id. The Government asserted the states
secret privilege to resist the discovery of this information, because the aircraft in question and those
aboard were engaged in a highly secret mission of the Air Force.

~snip~

Plaintiffs, however, maintain that this information is not relevant to the resolution of their
claims, since their claims regarding the TSP are based solely on what Defendants have publicly
admitted. Indeed, although the instant case appears factually similar to Halkin, in that they both
involve plaintiffs challenging the legality of warrantless wiretapping, a key distinction can be drawn.

Unlike Halkin or any of the cases in the Reynolds progeny, Plaintiffs here are not seeking any
additional discovery to establish their claims challenging the TSP.6

http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/eGov/taylorpdf/06%2010204.pdf

[MrCoffee]

189. Brilliant tactical move by the ACLU

No discovery = nothing to protect with state secrets privilege.

[Oreo]

29. More on Judge Anna Diggs Taylor

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060807/NEWS05/608070381/1001/NEWS

She was appointed by Carter

In 1966, Taylor became an assistant U.S. attorney in Detroit, but left the following year to manage her husband's Detroit congressional office.

In 1970, she went into private practice.

During the next five years, she and Diggs divorced. She also campaigned for Coleman Young, helping him become Detroit's first black mayor.

In 1975, Young asked her to become a staff lawyer to defend his programs to integrate city government.

A year later, she married S. Martin Taylor, then director of the Michigan Employment Security Commission.

In 1979, three years after she campaigned for Jimmy Carter's presidential bid, Carter rewarded Taylor with a lifetime appointment to U.S. District Court in Detroit.

Taylor was the first black female federal district judge in the U.S. 6th Circuit, comprising Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee.

In the years that followed, she presided over high-profile cases and made some waves.

In 1984, she sentenced Ronald Ebens to 25 years in prison for beating 27-year-old Vincent Chin to death with a baseball bat outside a Highland Park bar. Ebens, a laid-off autoworker, was angry about Japanese car imports. Chin was a Chinese American.

An appeals court overturned the verdict and Ebens was acquitted at retrial.

"The entire experience was a wrenching one from start to finish," Taylor said later.

In 1984, Taylor banned nativity scenes on municipal property in Birmingham and Dearborn in ACLU lawsuits.

The same year, she publicly rebuked then-Chief Judge John Feikens for racially insensitive remarks about the ability of Young and other black leaders to run city government. They later became friends.

In 1998, a year after Taylor became chief judge, Judge Bernard Friedman blasted her for her role in an effort to have a suit challenging the University of Michigan's use of race in its law school's admission policies assigned to another judge who was handling a similar case. Taylor's husband is a U-M regent.

Lawyers say Taylor is fair, pleasant and dignified, yet in firm control of her courtroom.

"She is smart as hell," one lawyer told the 2006 Almanac of the Federal Judiciary.

In January 1999, Taylor went on senior status, continuing with a smaller caseload.

On Friday, she will be inducted into the National Bar Association Hall of Fame during its conference in Detroit.

[brer cat]

137. Jimmy Carter...the President who keeps on giving! n/t

[Patsy Stone]

30. Yes, Virginia... There IS a Santa Claus!

:bounce:

[Imagevision]

92. Attorney General Gonzalez should be fired ASAP!!

[Patsy Stone]

118. Impeachment for George and Dick

And let's get on that immediately.

[goclark]

121. Here Comes The Judge! Go! YES!

I would have loved to see Gonzales face.. boy oh boy.

Justice came today, please let JUSTICE stay.

[warrens]

31. In yo face, fascists

It takes a lot to overturn a decision like this. And until the appeal is heard, absent an order from a higher court, they have to obey it. This should be gooooood.

[derby378]

32. UN. CON. STITUTIONAL.

I love the smell of burning domestic spying programs in the morning...

[originalpckelly]

33. But will the President listen?

We all assume this fella is ready and willing to follow the orders of the court, uh, but wait a second weren't they ALREADY violating the orders of the court (U.S. v. Katz)?

[flyarm]

34. I refuse to read this.."its real new"s and not about Jon Benet..

i would not want to fuck up my mind with anything that was truely pertaining to my life or democracy!!:sarcasm: :sarcasm:

more 24/7 Jon Benet..is all i can hear...i am not capable of digesting anything deeper than that...:sarcasm: :sarcasm:

now my day has been ruined..with a jolt of "real news"..:sarcasm: :sarcasm:

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

thanks KPETE!!

anyone have the story about the 21 generals letter that was supposed to be released today??

opps...i know..i deviate..:sarcasm: :sarcasm:

Jon Benet,Jon Benet , Jon Benet ,Jon Benet ,Jon Benet ,Jon Benet ,Jon Benet

priorities you know..

fly

[me b zola]

35. cnn talking about it now

NSA ordered to immediately stop illegal spying!

[me b zola]

41. oops, back to JBR

:wtf:

[Supersedeas]

36. watch as CNN becomes the all Jon Benet all the time Network

[AntiFascist]

124. at least MSNBC is covering news (jab, jab) ..n/t

[Jim__]

37. Great news! But, will it survive an appeal to the repuke Supreme Court?

I think it will - right now 5-4. One more bush appointee and its over.

[rodeodance]

38. this is the 2nd slap on the WH--recall the Gitmo ruling!!

[rodeodance]

39. cnn saying the WH will fire back saying they need the tools to get the

terrorists

[EVDebs]

81. Greatest 'tool' is common sense (and they ain't got none in Shrubland) nt

[Olney Blue]

176. I thought the tools were already in the WH

[ryanus]

42. I just hope

that there's no bad event that the feds say they couldn't stop because they didn't know about it because they couldn't tap, and then people decide they don't care if its unconstitutional, they just want the attacks to stop. I hope we don't get to the point where people decide the constitution leaves us open to attack.


On edit:
Hmm...too late?
"Up next, federal judge rules Constitution really is a suicide pact!"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1685294/posts?q=1&&page=1#3

[Beetwasher]

44. *Sigh* That's A Load Of Crap

They have all the authority they need to tap w/out a warrant and stop any attack. They can get warrants RETROACTIVELY under current law. They already have ALL the authority they need.

"I hope we don't get to the point where people decide the constitution leaves up to open to attack."

I guess the constitution means nothing to, ahem, some people. :eyes:

[ryanus]

47. Yeah I know

I'm not saying that I think they should tap. I'm just saying that the Bush admin would use a bad event to convence a lot of people that they should be able to tap however they want, and forget this judgement or it's constitutionality.

I wonder how many attacks and what severity it would take for the majority of Americans to toss out the Bill of Rights. I don't think it would be many. So if a couple nukes go off on US soil, I wonder how many people would still argue that the feds shouldn't tap without a warrant. Probably me and some other guy in Oklahoma.

So if there were a lesser attack, would the majority then be convinced that warrantless taps are better than a dirty bomd going off somewhere? Probably. So if I wanted to get the people to support me doing warrantless taps even though it is unconstitutional, I might just alllow, or arrange for, a dirty bomb to go off somewhere. I'm just saying.

[Beetwasher]

63. Oy

You know what? It really doesn't matter what people think. The law is the law, the constitution is the constitution. If enough people think it's ok to string up black people anytime they want, it doesn't make it ok or legal. That is precisely WHY we have a court system, and for a change, they are acting responsibly w/ regard to Chimpy's illegal activities.

[ryanus]

73. I can't agree with that

The law is the law only because enough people have enough power to enforce it. If no one wanted to enforce it, then it wouldn't matter if the constitution was even there. It would just be a piece of paper.

If a nuke went off in the US, and the majority of the people said that we should toss out the Bill of Rights, we (as a country) probably would, assuming that majority had the power to do that, which I think they would. That's what's scary to me. Not a nuke, but the people's reaction to it regarding their rights.

[Beetwasher]

82. Have You Ever Read The Constitution?

It doesn't seem like you have. What you just said is TOTAL BULLSHIT.

"If a nuke went off in the US, and the majority of the people said that we should toss out the Bill of Rights, we (as a country) probably would, assuming that majority had the power to do that, which I think they would."

Umm, no, it doesn't work like that. Read the document before you discuss it so cluelessly.

[ryanus]

86. Easy now

I think we are on the same side. I am commenting on the state of the populace. I am saying that I am not confident that the majority of people would be willing to defend their rights in the event of a couple of nukes. I think people would voluntarily give up their rights in that kind of event. I think the country would suffer a failure of not having enough people with enough power to support and maintain the constitution. I don't think the machinations spelled out in the constitution would continue to work, because it relies on the people to support them. Failure of the system because too many people decide they don't want the system as it is anymore.

Hope that is more clear.

[Beetwasher]

91. But You're Wrong

"I don't think the machinations spelled out in the constitution would continue to work, because it relies on the people to support them."

That's just not a true statement. One of the beauties of the constitution is that it (supposedly) protects the rights of MINORITIES. IOW, just because a majority want something, if it's in violation of the constitution you actually have to change the constitution ITSELF before you can enact whatever it is you want to enact. Flag burning for instance. A majority want it banned, but it ain't happening. You need 2/3 of the Senate support to change the constitution and that is very, very difficult to accomplish.

That being said, if nukes went off in this country, I would agree that THIS gov't (Bushco.) would essentially seize control and throw the constitution out the window (they essentially already ARE trying, even w/out nukes), but it has nothing to with "the majority of the people" and "the majority of the people" and what they think is irrelevant to: A. What the Bush admin. would do in such and instance, and B. Changing or nullifying the constitution in general.

[ryanus]

101. You miss my point

"One of the beauties of the constitution is that it (supposedly) protects the rights of MINORITIES"

Only because there are enough people with enough power to protect those rights. There's nothing that protects anyone's rights except actions by other people. But if those other people don't act to protect your rights, then your rights are not going to be protected, whether this is right or wrong. "The Constitution" doesn't actually defend your rights, but rather it's the prevailing enforcement power from other people that does. The entire system relies on there being enough people with enough power to act in accordance to it.

At some point, there could be too few people who believe in the constitution and who could enforce it, such that the machinations in the constitution would not work anymore. Like if you and I were the only people in the country who thought we should have the rights in the bill of rights and everyone else was intent on enforcing a police state and abolishing those rights, we couldn't stop them, regardless of the constitution. It ultimately comes down to enforcement which is done by people, but in their official capacities and just normal people.

If people no longer want to enforce it, then we are screwed. That is my concern if a couple of nukes were to go off in the US.

[Beetwasher]

119. That's Total Bullshit

It has nothing to do w/ what "the people" want. If you want to just argue "whoever has the most power gets what they want" fine, that may be true, but then you're not discussing the constitution, or constitutional rights, or even majority opinion, you're discussing the dynamics of power, and it has nothing to do w/ majority opinion or the constitution.

The majority doesn't "enforce" anything. It's actually a small minority that "enforces" things in this country. Bush is "enforcing" his ideas on this country merely by ignoring the constitution and doing whatever the fuck he wants. Majority opinions are irrelevant.

If a nuke went off and the majority DIDN'T want to toss the constitution, do you think that would stop Bush or the gov't from doing so anyway if THEY wanted to? No, it wouldn't and that means, as I said, majority opinion is IRRELEVANT when you're discussing power dynamics (which is what you switched the converstation to). And it's ALSO irrelevant when you're discussing constitutional rights, which exist precisely to protect the minority FROM the majority (which is what we were originally discussing). Back to my main point: Majority opinion is irrelevant in such a situation as a nuke going off, in that case, it's all about power dynamics anyway. And in cases of constitutionality, majority opinion is irrelevant as the Constitution exists precisely to protect the minority in such situations.

[ryanus]

123. strawman

Do you just need someone to argue with? You keep on trying to argue about how things work within the system, but I am talking about the system itself being supported. You also are confusing terms, particularly "enforcement" and "majority". You use a different, more specific meaning, then I did and try to argue about it.

The government under the constitution only works because about 300 million people act in accordance with it. Can you conceive, even theorietically that 299.99 million would not anymore? Do you think the currents laws and constitution would still be in force? Of course not. So laws are only laws in effect if they are enforced (acted on, fought for, physically enforced) and they can only be enforced if the prevailing power (possibly, but not necessarily, the majority of the people) is in accordance with it. Same goes for the entire system under the constitution, but on a larger scale. Maybe it's hard to grasp an america with no one supporting the constitution.

What's a law? If Bush declares something a law, is it? What if Congress passes a law that re-instates slavery and the supreme court upholds it, is it a law? If your town has a law on the books about horse thieves, is it a law? If no one in the country any longer thinks that we should have a right to free speech and they get congress to pass a law banning it, is it a law, with or without an amendment? What if we had all these rights listed in the Bill of Rights yet had laws that all totally go against it, but those laws are supported by the people and are enforced by police powers. Do we still have a Bill of Rights?

Could it be possible for the feds to come up with a story where they were able to stop some WMD in the US, attribute it to warrantless wiretapping, and fool the people into thinking that we must have warrantless wiretapping to keep us safe? That is my fear.

All you have to do is find the toleration threshhold of the people giving up their rights for security, then create (or claim to prevent perhaps) an event that is beyond that threshhold so that the people do not complain when you violate their rights. Hello 911, hello liquid bomb scare. etc.

Hence my fear that although Bush loses this one in court, it's not a problem for him. He can just create some terror fear that gets people to capitulate.

[Beetwasher]

127. LOL! Umm, The Strawman Is Yours

"I hope we don't get to the point where people decide the constitution leaves us open to attack."

That's what you wrote, and it is IRRELEVANT what the people decide about the constitution, the constitution is designed to protect individual rights REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE MAJORITY DECIDE. If "people decide" the constitution leaves us open to attack, guess what? Constitutionally speaking, it's irrelevant AND w/ regards to power dynamics it's irrelevant. If you don't get it, it's your own failing, not mine.

Reverse the situation a bit and think about it. What if there was a nuke attack and the majority of people DID want to throw out the constitution but a wise leader said "No, I will NOT abrogate my responsibilities and I will NOT eliminate constitutional protections". Could the majority FORCE him to do so? Not likely, at least not anytime soon. They would have to elect people willing to do so first.

Your whole argument is one big strawman. Either you're discussing constitutional rights, which means the constitution holds authority, regardless of what the majority thinks, or your discussing power dynamics and the constitution is irrelevant anyway and in that case, majority opinion is ALSO totally irrelevant. Majorities have no enforcement power unless you're discussing elections. Only the small minority that controls the armed forces, police etc. has enforcement power, and if they had the gumption to declare marshall law, they can do so, regardless of what the majority wants. If the majority DIDN'T want them to declare marshall law, would that stop them? If your answer is no, then your point about majority opinion having any sway is blown out of the water (and any reasonable person would have to answer "no" to that).

Either you are naive, or utterly determined to cling to your strawman about majority opinions in relation to constitutional questions and power dynamics.

Again, just for clarity since you obviously need it, we are talking about TWO SEPARATE ISSUES. One, has to do w/ constitutionality and the second has to do w/ power dynamics in the event of national catastrophe. Two totally separate issues, neither of which is dependant upon majority opinion.

"If a nuke went off in the US, and the majority of the people said that we should toss out the Bill of Rights, we (as a country) probably would, assuming that majority had the power to do that, which I think they would."

If a majority were against tossing out the bill of rights in this instance, guess what? It wouldn't matter, they could do it anyway, which means THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE'S OPINION IS IRRELEVANT. PERIOD.

[ryanus]

131. Ok

>>"it is IRRELEVANT what the people decide about the constitution, the constitution is designed to protect individual rights REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE MAJORITY DECIDE"

I can't see how this can be true.

>>"What if there was a nuke attack and the majority of people DID want to throw out the constitution but a wise leader said "No, I will NOT abrogate my responsibilities and I will NOT eliminate constitutional protections". Could the majority FORCE him to do so? Not likely, they would have to elect people willing to do so first."

Ha ha. Yeah, the majority always just votes, especially in the South, and in the 13 colonies, too. I feel better.

I'm done playing, man. I mean seriously. But no hard feelings.

Thanks for the welcome.

[Beetwasher]

132. "I can't see how this can be true." Oh Brother!

I was right, you've never read the constituion, have you?

Yeah, welcome to DU. Do yourself a favor, read the constitution and then get back to me.

[ryanus]

134. Yeah you're right

Sorry. ok.

[Beetwasher]

135. No Problem

Seriously, welcome. If you can admit when you're wrong, then you ARE in the right place. It's a great place to learn.

If I come off as harsh, it's only because I'm an asshole, don't take it personally.

[ryanus]

136. Well

Thanks for the welcome. I've got thick-skin so I don't take it personal.

But I must admit I was just trying to end this conversation. I actually have read the constitution (well, almost, I'm about 3/4 through). Just kidding...about the 3/4 part.

[Beetwasher]

147. Heh

Ok, whatever. If you've read it then it certainly doesn't seem like you understand it. Perhaps a refresher is needed? :shrug:

[FiveGoodMen]

156. He was saying that people will simply violate the Constitution

if they want to. They're already very good at that in the White House. No one is saying the Constitution won't count; just that no one may follow it.

[Beetwasher]

167. Heh

>>"it is IRRELEVANT what the people decide about the constitution, the constitution is designed to protect individual rights REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE MAJORITY DECIDE"

"I can't see how this can be true."

[krispos42]

174. At the risk of getting my butt in a crack... :-)

We can see what happens when oversight disappears. The Republican-controlled Congress is sitting around with their collective thumbs up their collective pasty asses. BushCo. does whatever it wants to and offers up some lame excuse like "White House lawyers have studies the matter carefully..." or "it's an unconstitutional infringement on constitutional executive authority..." or some other line of complete and total bullshit, and the powers-that-be in Congress simply say "Good enough for me!" and go back to trying to ban gay marriage and making joint resolutions supporting the troops.

In the short term it is possible for the system to be abused if the people in power, the people that we entrust to make, enforce, and interpret laws, turn a blind eye. It also takes time for the wheels of government to turn. Lawsuits must be filed and processes, legislation must be crafted and introduced, and elections themselves only occur every two years.

Eventually the bums are voted out, new legistation is crafted and old laws repealed, and the cases wind their ways through the judiciary. The boat of democracy eventually stops listing to one side and rights itself.

Remember, it took a century of struggle to finally defeat all of the racist, anti-black laws in the country, despite the fact that they were clearly prejudiced and unconstitutional, simply because of the entrenched, resistive power structure.

It is more difficult for long-term abuse because the Constitution is self-correcting. What is worrying me is that rather than letting the Constitutionally-defined processes fix this mess, the people that made the mess (the GOP) are trying to change the Constitution to retroactively legalize the mess.

For example, a bill has been introduced into the US House, House Joint Resolution 9, which would repeal the 22nd Amendment. As you all (should) know, this is the amendment that limits the President to 2 terms. Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj109-9
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/22nd_Amendment

[Quantess]

90. Just to let you know,

Nobody here is interested in FreeRepublic's take, and besides, we can predict that they will talk about "protecting our freedoms" (whatever that means), while ignoring the freedoms that our Constitution protects.

I don't have time right now to give you a thoughtful answer why warrantless spying is illegal, unconstitutional, and dangerous to American freedom, but you can find several good arguments here on the DU site.

Since you are pretty new here, I thought I'd just let you know that the opinions at FR are not given much regard.

[ryanus]

105. Uh...

I guess everyone misunderstood my point. I am not saying I am for warrantless tapping. The complete opposite. I was wondering how the people's opinion on stuff like this would change if there was an event that was claimed to have happened because the feds couldn't do things like warrantless tapping. Like a nuke goes off and the feds say, "oh this happened because we coudln't do warrantless taps." And then the people say, "we don't care about the bill of rights anymore. Tap us, search us, detain us. Do whatever you want to prevent this from happeneing again. We don't care about our rights anymore." That is my fear.

I only included the FreeRepublic quote because I thought it demonstrated that maybe people are all ready going in that direction, ie, that the constitution gives us so many rights it's actually dangerous.

Yikes people. Read.

[Quantess]

128. Welcome to DU

Sorry I misunderstood you. I'm certain that a lot of others also jumped to the wrong conclusion about you, simply for posting a freerepublic link. Now you know!
:hi:

[ryanus]

133. Thanks

That was kinda of weird experience. I guess I learned a few more tactical skills in posting here.

[sofa king]

153. Welcome!

I think I understand what you're saying. My take on it is this: the rule of law (and therefore the Constitution) only applies so long as most of the people actually believe in the rule of law and are willing to follow it. For a great example of Constitutional side-slipping just look at Amendments 13-15, which tried to abolish slavery and racial discrimination, only to be trumped by Jim Crow for another hundred years. Clearly, the people didn't want to obey the Constitution, and in many places, they didn't.

In practice, the Constitution is hardly inviolable. In fact, the Supreme Court exists primarily to determine which violations of the Constitution have already happened. There are times when the public either doesn't notice or is powerless to intervene in clearly unconstitutional behavior by our government. A short list of examples might include Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus (and threatened imprisonment of Justice Taney), the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II, and maybe even Reynolds v. United States, the case in which the State Secrets Privilege was first described.

It's probably no coincidence that those first two egregious violations of our supposedly inalienable rights happened in wartime. I for one am certain that the Bush Administration is seeking to reproduce those same conditions specifically so that they can do whatever the fuck they want to do. They've gone to great lengths to break the law to start a war so that they can break the law even more.

It's a dangerous game they're playing, because if the people ever figure out that they're not following the rule of law--and clearly they aren't--then they might start asking, "why should we?"

Then people will start casting 7.62 mm ballots, just like they do in Mogadishu.

[stepnw1f]

181. Welcome to DU (nt)

[rabbit2484]

43. Good Job everyone at DU

If it wasn't for us caring about our rights and letting our members of congress and the rest world know, this never would have happened.

:toast:

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. pushback has started, FINALLY

[MannyGoldstein]

46. No Shit. The Courts Did What The Democrats Were Scared To Do.

I can't begin to convey my outrage that only a handful of Democrats were willing to do what is so obvious - to formally take a stand what is blatantly unconstitutional.

Shame on them!

Thank goodness that our judiciary still functions!

[bleever]

48. Yes, Virginia, there IS an independent judiciary.

At least in some places, and in this case, right where we needed it for the sake of the Constitution.

[Patsy Stone]

117. Hey!

Are you mocking me?

:hi:

[Subdivisions]

49. Every single one of you

with eyeballs on this message need to put down your laptop or your keyboard and pick up your cellphone or telephone and call your local representatives and demand that impeachment begin IMMEDIATELY!

On edit: spelling

[Subdivisions]

55. In response to my own post...

I just called both Cornyn's and Hutchison's office and demanded that they draw up impeachment proceedings and/or support any impeachment process that arises as a result of Federal District Court's findings and they the both immediately call a press conference to announce their position on the matter.

[OregonDem]

50. Why do people continue to make the argument that are rights

make us weak and open to attack? I believe they make us strong, after all who wants to fight to defend a nation where its citizens aren't free? Would our soldiers take pride in the fact that they were defending tyranny? Somehow I don't think so, I think that be extremely demoralizing to them.
And where does Bush get the idea that the right to privacy exists for the state, but not for US citizens? Maybe he's never read the Constitution and instead had Dick tell him what it says. You know how difficult it was for him to read "my pet goat".

[Horse with no Name]

51. Bush's reply?

"Whatcha gonna do about it"..snort snort smirk smirk
We all knew it was unconstitutional--but what difference does it make to say it is such if there isn't anything going to be done about it other than to footnote history.

[Subdivisions]

56. Could be, but his actual response was...

to sign a bill strengthening pension plans...for those lucky enough to last long enough in a job to actually earn a pension plan.

The rich get richer, and stay richer.

[librechik]

74. oh, and kick a whole bunch of folks off the minimum wage guarantee

by calling them "supervisor."

[citizen snips]

52. WooHoo!

:bounce:

[El Fuego]

53. Remember we are talking about WARRANTLESS wiretapping

so they can't play the Dems-are-weak-on-terrorism card. The repugs are trying to make it sound like the opposition to this administration is against wiretapping, period, which is false. We are against ILLEGAL wiretapping. Under FISA, you can get a warrant retroactively, so they have no excuse.

[johnaries]

64. Right, like Feingold said Sunday, there's NO REASON they

can't gather the information they need legally.

[mom cat]

54. The wheeles of justice ,,, exceedingly slow, but sometimes we win one.

:bounce:

[Az_lefty]

57. A woman judge shoved it in his face !!!!!

you know this is going to make the fundies explode.
:rofl:

[Subdivisions]

58. I have one question...

What brought down Nixon?

[Subdivisions]

59. FUCK!

CNN reports the Repugs first reaction is that the Judge in Detroit is a Carter appointee!

FUCK! FUCK! FUCK!

I want to SCREAM!

[blonndee]

68. If that's the best they can do, they KNOW the judge is right. nt

[yodermon]

80. not just any Carter appointee

an African American Woman Carter appointee.

The racist sexist repuke lynch mob will be out in full force.

[Raksha]

145. Well, that was pretty predictable.

The judge is a Carter appointee...what ELSE would you expect the Repugs to focus on?

[OregonDem]

60. Freepers are upset that a judge stood up to fascism,

and are making fun of the fact that she is a black woman. What a bunch of inbred nazi pricks.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1685309/posts

[Mr_Spock]

66. FREEPERS ARE NAZI'S!!

Just want to repeat that as it is very true.

[wicket]

61. Glory, Glory Hallelujah!

:woohoo:

[myrna minx]

62. WhooHoo. n/t

[Mr_Spock]

65. I just heard this on NPR.

I'm sure they'll appeal and have the judge killed.

[LeftHander]

67. Like courts are going to stop them....

It will just go on in secret....until it is broke again. By then the president and Dickie will be well insulated from "overzealous agents" in the NSA who took protecting American from terror a little to much to heart. After all we all don't want another 911. Do we?

:sarcasm:

[confludemocrat]

69. Judges rule Constitution is constitutional Woohoo, whatta surprise!!!!!

geez, what passes for a win these days

[negativenihil]

71. WAHOO!!!!! Score one for the people!!!!!! n/t

[Octafish]

72. CHIMPEACH!

[negativenihil]

75. So when will we be hearing of a foiled...

terror plot that could have been stopped sooner if they had been allowed to keep on with the warrentless wiretaps?

or even one step further - when do we get "hit" again? (you know... "We could have stopped this, but those damn activist judges took away our tools!")

i feel sick.

[Pacifist Patriot]

76. Can't never trust a Yale grad, can you Bushie?

LOL! Love it. I love it! The only thing that would have made it better would have been if King George I had appointed her.

[Heywood J]

77. I think the response on FR

is rather telling. I mean, they don't actually discuss much on the substance of the issue as much as they use the space to lob perjoratives at the judge, Arabs, Muslims, etc. The impression given is that they don't have anything else to go on, any way they can challenge the substance, so they attack the actors. That's particularly sad.

Many comments seem to be filled with appeals to authority (rather than fact). There are comments right now saying that Bush should just attack these judges and "expose" them (no doubt via Karl Rove), encouraging more Plame-style attacks on critics rather than on the criticism. I make it a point not to even check up on that site on a regular basis, and it's times like this that I'm reminded of why I made that choice.




Freepers, come back to politics when you can debate the issues instead of calling names. Right now, you're just juvenile. Short of appeals to base nature, I can't imagine how anyone thought you or your associates were worthy of governing.

[Freeusfromthechurch]

78. Today was a down day for me until now.

When the truth prevails we must celebrate.

[threadkillaz]

79. "I do solemnly swear.."

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

http://rs6.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pioaths.html

[d---mad2]

171. DIDN'T COUNT?

Apparently no one noticed the CROSSED FINGERS on Bush's left hand.

Therefore, Bush felt the oath was invalidated, and that is how his mini-mind works.

[Dudley_DUright]

83. Glenn Greewald's take on the decision can be found here

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/federal-court-finds-warrantless.html

[Rex]

85. Bush doesn't follow the same laws as The People.

Or he just makes up some new ones to work around a court ruling.

[Imagevision]

88. Bush must preserve and protect and uphold the constitution - it's what

he has sworn to do. Even the president is not above the law.

[Skidmore]

89. Suppose he'll try to do some variation of the signing statements

with that ruling? He thinks he is above the law, no matter what form it comes in. I'm very grateful that the judge was doing her job, I just don't trust that * and goons will follow it. I'd lay odds that they continue to do it, but burrow further underground.

[ThomWV]

93. YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAWWWWWW Best News In 6 Years

Celebration in the old town tonight!

[Disturbed]

104. Busholini knew that he and NSA were violating the Law.

“Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.”

President Bush -- April 20, 2004

[wryter2000]

95. Faux News crawler

"Activist judge hates America."

[krispos42]

96. Fox News of course shows a crappy pic of Taylor n/t

[young_at_heart]

99. I'll bet Cheney and his boys are working furiously to discredit the judge

They will concentrate on her and try to find any dirt they can. The wiretapping program will have no discussion.....it will be all about her!

[creeksneakers2]

151. They had a full smear on Rash Limbaugh

minutes after the ruling. Rash said the judge was black in his first sentence describing her. He had lots of tidbits to share.

Sometimes I wonder if the RWs have a giant office building somewhere filled with scarcely paid interns who go over every possible piece of information for talking points. Other times I wonder if the RWs have everything that happens anywhere fed into a big computer and they run an instant program anytime something happens to come up with political dirt.

[Xenotime]

100. If * doesn't stop, does that mean he is breaking the law?

Can that lead to impeachment?

[vickitulsa]

177. Jeff Toobin explained why the wiretapping would not stop -- YET.

I didn't see this discussed here, though it may have been, sorry if so.

Toobin said that in cases where (Circuit Court) judges make a ruling that is so significant as this one, it is common practice for that ruling judge to expect appeals that may end with the overturning of the ruling, and that as a result such a judge WILL ALLOW whatever practice was ruled unconstitutional to continue until the case is finally decided at a higher level.

Don't know if that's what will happen here, but Toobin also says that it is unlikely the SCOTUS will be where this one is ultimately decided. He thinks the Supremes will refuse to hear this, demanding that it be referred to CONGRESS to clarify the whole thing in legislation (possibly NEW legislation?) before they decide on the issue. He indicated their reasoning in doing so would be that Congress would likely deal with the matter anyway just after a SCOTUS decision was handed down, so why not refer it to the nation's LAWMAKERS beforehand to save a lot of time and trouble?

I can't help wondering if this is how it will all shake out.

Oh yeah, btw, Toobin also said that it was VERY UNLIKELY that this Congress, already "burdened" as it is with trying to rewrite laws concerning the Gitmo ruling by the SCOTUS, will clarify this domestic spying issue with legislation BEFORE THE NOVEMBER '06 ELECTIONS.

Hmm ... now why does THAT not surprise anyone??

[BootinUp]

180. I don't see how SCOTUS can just not take the case

Its a constitutional question of the highest order.


edit:spelling

[vickitulsa]

182. They do refuse to hear a lot of cases,

and sometimes they don't even give their reasons. Other times, like with the Pledge of Allegiance/Neudow case, they do provide their reasons (in that case, standing).

I tend to agree with you, however, that in this very important case concerning constitutionality, and one where a program the pResident loves so much and wants to continue is concerned, it seems the SCOTUS would agree to hear it -- and decide in favor of Bu$h.

I've often wondered if any of those Supremes ever heard from the Bu$h camp after their Gitmo decision recently ... seems obvious the Criminal-in-Chief would have been pissed about that one. I know I'm still surprised by it, but then I'm not holding my breath thinking that even that ruling actually STOPPED the Bu$h criminals from torturing.

Same result would also likely happen if the SCOTUS found the NSA warrantless wiretapping unconstitutional. I can't see this administration obeying ANY laws without the most intense pressure from Congress, media, the public, and (in some cases) the world. We all know about this do-nothing Congress (which could easily FIX this whole mess with some clearly written legislation), the sold-out media, the slowly awakening public, and the mad-as-hell world. So far no success in getting the bit in this wild-bronc pResident's mouth, or else no one's been able to find the reins....

[D23MIURG23]

102. damn its good to see some payback

On behalf of the constitution. I just hope the pro-constitution school of the supreme court prevail on this issue if it ends up there.

[file83]

103. Time for Rove to S M E A R this judge....5...4...3...2...

[racaulk]

108. Damn activist judges!

[Uncle Joe]

109. This whole miserable excuse of a "Presidency"

is nothing but an unconstitutional, thin skinned, petty, immoral, unethical, dishonest, greedy, self absorbed, incurious, lazy minded, self righteous, hypocritical, demagoguing pile of elephant fecal material.

[Popol Vuh]

110. Freeper responses:

LOL, the freeps are losing their minds. What am I saying? They don't have any minds to lose in the first place. Its still funny to watch the mental midgets react.




Here's a few quotes:

:nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

Thanks for weighing in there Chippy, but the court really has no say on how the Commander-in-chief of the military chooses to conduct intelligence gathering on the enemy in a time of war.

I really think it's going to take an Islamic terrorist detonating a nuclear weapon on American soil before people finally get it. Even then, who knows?

Arab capital of the USA?

This sounds like something John Conyers cooked up, as he is a Congressman for Detroit. Can you imagine him being the leader of the Judiciary Commitee? If you want to see something really funny, check out Conyer's web site. He is trying to appeal to the Kos nuts.

A victory for the terrorists and liberals.

These stinkin' judges; honest to Pete, they don't have the common sense they were born with.

Ok, now I get it, after seeing the pic: liberal black female, couldn't resist a chance to "get" Bush. The verdict was a foregone conclusion with this judge; judge shopping, indeed.

This descision must have been made to protect the potential hamas and other terrorist's living in dearbornistan.

[Rex]

111. Dearbornistan

Anyone want to take a guess as to what country that is?

[Imagevision]

122. Republicans saying ruling will endanger more American lives.

[racaulk]

188. WTF?

Nice little freeper quote there...

"Thanks for weighing in there Chippy, but the court really has no say on how the Commander-in-chief of the military chooses to conduct intelligence gathering on the enemy in a time of war."

Oh really? That's exactly why our system of checks and balances exists, so that too much power is not afforded a single branch of the government, wartime or no. That's the exact purpose of this system, to prevent the Executive branch from going all willy-nilly and doing everything under the Sun in the name of "intelligence gathering on the enemy in a time of war."

Someone needs to go back and retake their ninth grade Civics class.

I swear, I think these people would submit to in-home full-body cavity searches if * could convince them that it would assist them in the war on terra.

[Fiendish Thingy]

112. This is the best news in a long time!

The question is will the Dems jump on this as a campaign issue..."are you pro-Constitution/pro-democracy, or pro-dictatorship?"

Judge Diggs Taylor should be the first supreme court nominee of the Gore/Feingold/Clark/Edwards/(fill in the blank with your fave Dem here) administration.

[Nothing Without Hope]

113. This is why just ONE MORE BUSHIE JUDGE ON THE SCOTUS would be the end.

They have four judges now. When a fundamental case like this is appealed to the SCOTUS, four of the five judges will rule to give Bush anything he wants. We MUST MUST MUST hold the line for more Bushies judges. All the GOPs and all too many of the Dem senators voted FOR Alito, even though it was obvious what he was. Those senators cannot be trusted and must be held accountable. Never have the stakes been higher.

Roll call Senate vote on the Alito cloture:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00001

Of course Lieberman voted for Alito, but he wasn't the only nominal "Democrat" to do so.

[Fiendish Thingy]

114. The Yahoo story is being freeped...

1798 responses and only 3 1/2 stars...c'mon DUer's!

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

115. Big deal, JON BENET RAMSEY! OMG, Shiney thing!

n/t

[Blutodog]

116. Judge rules what?

Most of been one of those Demo commie type judges! Swift boaters prepare your boats for action.

[dapper]

126. TERRA TERRA TERRA In Virginia!!!!

Some lady had a bottle of water that they detected explosives in. The brought in the dogs, they sniffed the bottle and detected explosives in the bottle too.

TERRA TERRA TERRA I Say!


Dap

[Independent_Liberal]

129. The GOP nazis are pissing their pants over this!

This is great! I love how Cheney and Hatch are saying that Dems winning will help the terrorists. I don't think people are going to give in to that fear mongering anymore. People clearly want change. Everybody can see how corrupt and incompetent the GOP is. We all know what Cheney and Hatch are really afraid of. I don't even need to say it, because you already know.

:)

[twaddler01]

130. Of course the white house disagrees...surprise surprise...but

I am happy with the decision! :D

[countryjake]

138. kick

[IWantAChange]

139. John Dean - where are you?

Has Dean come out with a statement concerning this? If the shoe was on the other foot you know some GOP spin meister would already be clogging the airwaves with "See, I told you so - You have to Elect Us because those darn Democrats want to take away all your freedoms" - I raise the point because even "joe 6-pack" the other half of the Republican base (half being the crazed Religious Right) - understands to a certain extent that he/she doesn't want any less personal freedoms than they already have.

[HereSince1628]

160. I expect a FindLaw essay from him soon, and appearances

as soon as his schedule allows.

[BelgianMadCow]

140. This was one of three headlines in our evening news.

so here sits one happy camper.

Wasn't there a SCOTUS ruling recently, against Bush*co?
I'm not so sure their chances get better on appeal...

[patricia92243]

144. WARRANTLESS Wiretapping !!! NOT wiretapping itself. n/t

[greiner3]

146. So when the decider is convicted;

I nominate myself to THROW THE DAMN SWITCH and get this crap over with!

[Dinger]

148. I Wish We Could Hear What Jonathan Turley has To Say

toobin on CNN seems to think it will be easily overturned, blah, blah, blah. He doesn't seem to think it's a big deal, blah, blah, blah. The only "anti-*" thing he has to say is that it is in line with recent court rulings that have gone against *. Turley would have kicked toobin's ass!

[vickitulsa]

179. I saw Toobin on CNN responding to this, but I heard it differently.

Does that wording even make sense? ;)

Check my post 177 in this thread to see what I reported as my understanding of Toobin's comments. I'll admit he certainly didn't seem to think it would all shake out with an upholding of Judge Taylor's ruling, but the details are where the devil often is and the details on this one are manifest and many....

BTW, I'd like to hear what Jonathan Turley has to say about it too.

[aein]

149. I'm sure it'll be overturned, on some lame-ass grounds

I think this case will be overturned, just like the pledge of allegiance case, on some technical ground. I say "standing." The federal courts' budget is being squeezed hard as it is.

[MrCoffee]

152. The ACLU's standing argument is the big vulnerability...

but it always is when associational groups bring suits like this. This time, the ACLU got affidavits from a whole pile of people claiming actual injury in fact due to fed. wiretapping. They got journalists, lawyers, educators to say that foreign contacts wouldn't talk to them anymore for fear of being listened to, and that the TSP cost them real dollars in business.

I don't think this will be overturned on standing.

And SCOTUS was right to overturn the pledge case (if you're referring to Neudow)

[Hailtothechimp]

154. This is a BIG WIN

Provides ammo that Bush is not above the law, as he clearly thinks he is.

I've seen some wingers (posting on Huffington post, in the standard RW practice of invading the enemy's turf) saying that when a bomb falls or an attack happens, it will be the judge's fault (and the ACLU and the unnamed "Libs" out there).

Now who's rooting for the enemy??? These people make me sick.

[Kolesar]

155. Does that mean they can't spy on Democrats or diplomats anymore, either?

[Roland99]

157. TO THE HAGUE!!! TO THE HAGUE!!! TO THE HAGUE!!!

[Guaranteed]

158. I weep for this justice.

So....so....sweet.

[HereSince1628]

161. But maybe so temporary... I don't trust the Robert's Court to let

it prevail.

[electron_blue]

162. I'm very interested in the implications. Will this stop Bush?

I mean... he knows it was illegal in the first place. This is like telling a small kid to stop pulling his sister's hair. What will happen next to actually force Bush et al. from doing this?

[lonestarnot]

163. Is he now gona break loose into bushitler gone wild?

[MadJohnShaft]

164. Can we impeach now?

[stepnw1f]

166. Ahhhh....(nt)

[flyarm]

168. see this : Unclaimed Territory - by Glenn Greenwald

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/federal-court-finds-warrantless.html


About Me
Name:Glenn Greenwald
For the past 10 years, I was a litigator in NYC specializing in First Amendment challenges, civil rights cases, and corporate and securities fraud matters. I am the author of the New York Times Best-Selling book, How Would A Patriot Act?, a critique of the Bush administration's use of executive power, released May, 2006.

View my complete profile

Thursday, August 17, 2006

Federal court finds warrantless eavesdropping unconstitutional, enjoins the program

(updated multiple times)



snip:

Let's resoundingly clear up two widely disseminated misconceptions, the first of which is being quite deliberately tossed around:

(1) Even with this Order, the Bush administration is free to continue to do all the eavesdropping on terrorists they want to do. They just have to do so with approval of the FISA court -- just like all administrations have done since 1978, just as the law requires, and just as they did when eavesdropping as part of the surveillance they undertook on the U.K. terror plot.

(2) The court's ruling that warrantless eavesdropping violates the Fourth and First Amendments clearly means (although the decision is far from a model of clarity) that Congress cannot authorize warrantless eavesdropping with legislation, which would preclude enforcement of the Specter bill.

This is clearest when the court rejects the administration's argument that the AUMF implicitly authorized violations of FISA. The court ruled that: (a) the AUMF cannot be read to amend FISA, but that (b) even if it could be so read, it would not matter, because Congress cannot authorize an unconstitutional program:


The AUMF Resolution, if indeed it is construed as replacing FISA, gives no support to Defendants here. Even if that Resolution superceded all other statutory law, Defendants have violated the constitutional rights of their citizens.

Op. at 39 (emphasis added). If Congress is not empowered to authorize this program through the AUMF (because the program is unconstitutional), then there is no good argument as to why the Specter bill can.


fly

[Stardust]

173. Can someone please explain the Specter bill regarding wiretaps?

[dweller]

169. tactfully fighting * here,

so they don't have to fight him over there.

kudos to her Honor!

:kick:

dp

[Major Hogwash]

172. Great post, kpete.

Finally, some good news that the Constitution is still revered by some Americans.

[what now toons]

175. Judge Anna Diggs Taylor deserves our thanks

Thanks to Mike Malloy having set up a link to thank Judge Anna Diggs Taylor for having the courage to stand up for the Constitution of the US. I was able to thank this Courageous woman. The link is on Mike Malloy's home page at www.mikemalloy.com She deserves support from us all. here's my brief thank you I sent to her...

Thank you for standing up for the Constitution of the United States. You, by your ruling on the illegal wiretapping, have given me a new breath of hope for the future of this country I love so much. I just wanted you to know you are not alone.
:toast:

[kpete]

178. thanks for the hat tip

Major

I have been saying it all my life - THE CONSTITUTION - It is our best hope!

[cool user name]

183. With due respect.

We always knew it was unconstitutional.

;)

The Feds should have acted far sooner than this.

[UncleTomsEvilTwin]

190. Castigating the Judge

Now, it's just a matter of Matt Drudge finding a bad picture
of her, digging up a drug charge or two about a distant family
member, questioning her sexuality and her position on gay
marriage, and the whole Repuke machine will be rolling along
rather nicely.

[cool user name]

184. Gotta love this comment from the link:

"You know what this means… another terror alert is on the way!"

So funny. :) So true. :(

[brg5001]

186. Another LIBBBERALL activist judge trying to change our traditions

One of our most sacred American traditions is under attack! Ever since we entered a permanent state of WAR with (FILL IN THE BLANK), our government has made an ever-increasing share of the budget "top secret" and therfore beyond even the most superficial scrutiny. Extra double-secret documents, meetings and surveilance activities have proliferated like horseflies on elephant sh*t. Why? Because we're at war with (FILL IN THE BLANK).

How dare this namby-pamby, LIBBERALLLLL appeaser Jimmy Carter appointee rule against a noble constitutional scholar such as Texas real estate lawyer (and Attorney General) Alberto Gonzales? He's in the 100-degree club, for crying out loud. Yes, he's one of the brown people, but he's got a realistic Texas accident and he knows that if you stamp any surveillance policy with a name like al-Quaeda, it's got to be good.

Don't the LIBBERALLLS understand that we're trying to fight a war on (FILL IN THE BLANK)? That's why we can't trust judges to issue warrants. One of the judges could be Anna Diggs Taylor and she might say "No." Think about it! Like Dick Cheney said, the "Democrat" party loves al-Quaeda, so their judges will tell al-Quaeda members like Saddam Hussein, Ned Lamont and other suspects ahead 'a time that we're tracking them. That's why we need the leadership of Frat Boy King Shrub. He's looked into their souls. He knows their heart. And he'll do whatever is necessary to prevent the next outbreak of Snakes on a Plane!

(This duplicates my post on a similar thread. Sorry if it was a repeat for you.)

[Imagevision]

191. Bush told to appeal - then keep it in appeals court until 2009

fact not fiction...