U.S. Supreme Court Declines To Rule On Constitutionality of Bulk Surveillance 141
An anonymous reader writes "On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of the National Security Agency's bulk acquisition and storage of phone record metadata. The petition (PDF) for a Supreme Court ruling was submitted as a result of U.S. District Judge Richard Leon staying his ruling (PDF), pending an appeal, in a suit in which he concluded that collection of phone metadata without probable cause violated the Fourth Amendment. The plaintiffs had bypassed the federal appeals court and applied directly to the high court, given Judge Leon's admission that the case had significant national security interests at stake. The Supreme Court's decision not to rule on the case means that an appeal will need to be submitted to the federal appeals court as per protocol, but there is speculation that the mass surveillance issue will likely be addressed in the legislative and executive branches of government before the judicial branch weighs in. The provision allowing the bulk collection, Section 215 of the Patriot Act, expires June 1, 2015.'"
Constitutional Court (Score:4, Interesting)
"U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of "
Seems like the US needs a Constitutional Court who rule on nothing else but constitutional matters, and cannot decline.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not only are they a court purchased by corporate interests, they are intellectually weak and the lack any courage to do the right thing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
no, they have the courage to do the right thing and allow the appellate court to rule. The only time a level of appeal should be skipped is when there are differing opinions extant at the many appellate courts.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid this is not true. An appellate court, presented with a singular case, can make a wrong decision. That means appealing to the Supreme Court, especially ofr issues of constitutional law or refinement of previous Supreme Court precedents which are being misapplied.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not so sure. How many cases end in capitulation due to lack of funds?
Re: (Score:2)
They wanted to be intellectually strong, but their corporate masters said no.
Re: (Score:2)
+1 notable exception. Got another one, or was Kelo the only fish in the barrel?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That is one of the few mistakes our founders made. Allowing the court to ignore cases.
Re:Constitutional Court (Score:5, Informative)
That is one of the few mistakes our founders made. Allowing the court to ignore cases.
Obviously you didn't read the article, nor understand the summary.
The court did not ignore the case. There is a procedure. It starts at the circuit court. Then it goes through the appeals court, usually first with panel of 3, then the full appeals court. The SCOTUS is the final level of appeals.
The process works as a vetting and refining system. The SCOTUS only gets involved in situations where different appeals courts have used differing standards or when there are certain controversial or seemingly contradictory situations. The district judge wanted to get around the procedures. It is very rarely successful except in cases where urgency is required and the implications are severe, such as the 'hanging chads' controversy. The court disagreed, wanting the case to go through the normal process.
As with every issue that is a political hot topic, the SCOTUS will tend to wait to give congress a chance to address this before ruling. Often when Congress amends the law while a case is in progress, the appeal will simply remand it back to the district court with an order to follow the revised law rather than the old law.
As of now, in the DC court, his initial ruling (that the bulk collection is unconstitutional) still stands, even though he put in a stay (delay before carrying out the order) in order to allow for appeals. If he felt so strongly he could have not accepted the stay, which would mean the government would need to implement the order immediately and the feds would have needed to petition for an emergency stay from a higher court.
Right now the ruling is that the collection is unlawful. With the appeal denied so far, that decision stands. That is what we want, so don't complain about it.
Re: (Score:1)
Obviously you didn't read the article
No, and i should not need to. if i do, then why bother having a news aggregation page with summaries in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously you didn't read the article
No, and i should not need to. if i do, then why bother having a news aggregation page with summaries in the first place?
You must be new here...
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I got it from the summary.
The plaintiffs had bypassed the federal appeals court and applied directly to the high court, given Judge Leon's admission that the case had significant national security interests at stake. The Supreme Court's decision not to rule on the case means that an appeal will need to be submitted to the federal appeals court as per protocol,
Re: (Score:2)
I would rather that they take it straight to the Supreme Court and settle the issue rather than dragging it out for another 4 years through appeals.
That way, I know right away whether anyone on the Supreme Court actually gives a shit about the Constitution.
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize there were almost 2 million federal cases last year? Even if the Supreme Court was in session 24/7 for the entire years, they'd have to hear arguments, rule, and write an opinion every 20 seconds to avoid ignoring any of them.
Re: (Score:2)
That is one of the few mistakes our founders made.
Another was to assume that subsequent political leaders would have the same personal integrity as they did and would strive to uphold the basic principles of the Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
That is one of the few mistakes our founders made.
Another was to assume that subsequent political leaders would have the same personal integrity as they did and would strive to uphold the basic principles of the Constitution.
The Constitution was being ignored almost before the ink was dry on the Bill of Rights with even Jefferson prosecuting people with laws that he thought unconstitutional. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Not really no.
By declining to take up the matter they can do so with comment (basically saying why they don't think it belongs) or they can say nothing and let lower court rulings stand.
They are the last arbiters of the constitution, not the first, if they agree completely with a lower courts interpretation then they don't need to say anything, the lower court stands.
Imagine this scenario. The government of a US state passes a law that prohibits carrying signs for protesting. Someone gets arrested, goes t
Re: (Score:2)
In Canada sometimes the government will ask the Supreme Court for an opinion on the Constitutionality of a law before it gets signed. Much better then passing laws of questionable constitutionality and letting people suffer until it works its way up the chain of appeals courts.
Re: (Score:2)
Can they not ask some legal scholars for opinion rather than the Supreme Court? It seems weird to ask a court if something is legal or not before you do it. You ask a lawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
The Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of what is constitutional so who better to give an opinion? The alternative is to pass the law, people get charged, go to court with all the hassles, perhaps get convicted and go to jail, eventually someone can afford the legal costs of multiple appeals until the law is thrown out, perhaps by a Provincial Supreme Court or Court of Appeals with the Supreme Court declining to hear the case or perhaps by the Supreme Court itself.
There are also issues of Federal vs Prov
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're asking the wrong question. Why wouldn't you use the Supreme Court? They're the body that's ultimately in charge of deciding whether it's constitutional or not. What's bizarre is choosing to use a third-party lawyer arbitrarily. Just so that you can say you didn't use the Supreme Court?
The US has determined the their constitution forbids federal courts from issuing advisory opinions. Some states do the same as Canada though with their state supreme courts.
Re: (Score:2)
In most countries there's a method the government can use to find out if a proposal it wants to enact is Constitutional before it gets passed. In many countries there's actually a specific Court, completely separate from the regular Court system. In others they just ask the Supreme Court. The Canadians have been doing this since 1875.
This looks really weird to Americans, but OTOH it would have been really nice if instead of arguing for two years about whether ObamaCare was Constitutional Pelosi could just h
Re: (Score:2)
In most countries there's a method the government can use to find out if a proposal it wants to enact is Constitutional before it gets passed. In many countries there's actually a specific Court, completely separate from the regular Court system. In others they just ask the Supreme Court. The Canadians have been doing this since 1875.
Not quite for Canada as up until 1949 ('33 for criminal cases) it was possible to appeal to the King (actually the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Very telling about how much actual knowledge one needs to be a college professor, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
There's actually a specific legal provision for that. Canadian governments can ask Courts for "Advisory opinions" on whether a particular law is Constitutional. These cases are also called "reference questions."
Since we invented Judicial Review basically by accident (the Founders were convinced the natural give-and-take of government would keep everyone Constitutional, and therefore didn't include any Constitutional provisions for dealing with what happens when somebody says the Constitution was violated),
Re: (Score:2)
They only declined to expedite the case by having it skip the normal appeals process; they did not decline to hear it at all. And, as the case now stands, a decline to hear or reverse the lower court means that the NSA loses as that is what the lower court decided.
You see, sometimes declining to hear is just a way of saying the outcome is so obvious and the lower courts already got it right so stop wasting our time.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like the US needs a Constitutional Court who rule on nothing else but constitutional matters, and cannot decline.
And confiscate the rubber stamp of any judge appointed to it.
Damages (Score:5, Informative)
Here's another article I read today
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/03/27/obamas-nsa-reform-package-may-hamstring-privacy-lawsuits [usnews.com]
Conservative legal activist Larry Klayman, unlike other challengers, seeks damages from Verizon and U.S. officials â" which may keep his two cases alive, experts say. Cases brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., do not seek damages.
The request for past damages means that his lawsuit can't be mooted by legislative changes.
All the other lawsuits are only asking for injuctions, and Congress can make them go away.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are around 300 million firearms in the United States. The US military has under 8000 armored vehicles that could even remotely considered "tanks"
If the people of the united states rose up against their government, it would be no contest. The military would lose very quickly. This is the point of the Right to bare arms. There can be no military coup in this country while the populace is so armed.
Re: (Score:2)
Can ANY of those 300 million firearms disable ONE of those "tanks".
Maybe if they all fired at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
Check out the roguesci lab sometimes..I'm not going to elaborate.
Re: (Score:2)
Armed infantry. or guerrillas, can destroy the fuel supplies, supply lines, and the personnel who reload and refuel the tanks. Tanks require far, far more fuel, maintenance, and much larger ammunition depots than ground troops. Basically, if you can engage in effective guerrilla warfare, you can defeat an artillery based army. Take a good look at the history of invasions of Russia and Afghanistan for particularly effective ground forces versus armor historical combats.
Re: (Score:2)
Armed infantry. or guerrillas, can destroy the fuel supplies, supply lines, and the personnel who reload and refuel the tanks. Tanks require far, far more fuel, maintenance, and much larger ammunition depots than ground troops. Basically, if you can engage in effective guerrilla warfare, you can defeat an artillery based army. Take a good look at the history of invasions of Russia and Afghanistan for particularly effective ground forces versus armor historical combats.
But it's not the guns that do it. It's explosives and booby traps. Mostly explosive booby traps. And it's definitely not legal guns that can do it.
Which means that even if the Second Amendment was repealed today, and all legal guns disappeared, the odds of a successful rebellion in the US would not decrease.
Re: (Score:2)
Guns help. It's much easier to _detonate_ a fuel supply with a firearm.
Re: (Score:2)
Check out the Mythbusters numerous attempts to get fuel to blow up with bullets. It almost never works. When it does work instead of *boom* they get a fire. To get gasoline to explode you need a very specific fuel-air mixture, which is very difficult to get by accident. It's even harder to get it in military fuel tanks because the military isn;t gonna design fuel tanks that blow up.
If you want to stop a tank division dead in it's tracks by attacking the supply trucks guns aren't the best option. Some sort o
Re: (Score:2)
> Check out the Mythbusters numerous attempts to get fuel to blow up with bullets
Very interesting. _Burning_ the fuel supply counts as destroying it. I still suspect it's easier to get bullets, and use them from a relatively safe distance, than to build and successfully deploy explosives near an ammo dump. I also agree that land mines and RPG's are more effective for direct attacks on armor.
But the point I was making is that small arms, even household firearms permitted under various states' more regulat
Re: (Score:2)
They only got fire with tracer rounds, which are really bad to use against a defended military position. If the other guy knows where you're shooting from you die.
My point isn't that there are no tactical situations where a gun would be useful. After you rebel it illegally importing firearms is pretty much inevitable. Historically successful rebellions a long-ass time -- the VC started their rebellion in the 40s, and didn't fully succeed until Saigon fell in '75, our own Revolution took almost 8 years, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
A knock on the door to surrender all now listed 'illegal' hardware. A truck waiting for a drive to a local reeducation camp would be quick solution for many.
Any people not understanding the lawful request to comply would be re interviewed and their complex views taken into consideration by t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tanks have come a long freaking way since WW2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]
The only Challenger 2 destroyed was by another Challenger 2 tank.
Re: (Score:2)
In one encounter within the urban area a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The driver's sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by fourteen rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile.[15] The crew survived remaining safe within the tank until the tank was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later after repairs. One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident.
Damn...
Re: (Score:2)
Modern tanks are designed so those don't work. The biggest thing is they almost all use diesel fuel, and diesel fuel simply does not burn. This protects most US Army vehicles, and others (like the M1 Abrams) are designed so that a Molotov can't blow up their gasoline.
The armor on the Abrams is particularly effective. You'd think we'd lose dozens in two wars over a decade, but we've only lost a handful.
Now you can clearly majorly fuck up a tank with booby traps, but not a Molotov cocktail, and you probably
Re: (Score:2)
Some can disable the lighter ones. But usually IEDs are used to take out armored vehicles.
Other considerations, you have to believe no American soldiers being forced to fire on Americans will defect with their own tanks. Many tanks will be stolen when tanker stop to piss.
Re: (Score:2)
You apparently haven't heard that tanks have improved since WW2.
Go look up the UK Challenger 2.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be daft. 1/3rd will rise up, 1/3rd will take the side of government and 1/3rd will be indifferent, any other split would see elections being able to solve things. End result will be something like Democrats vs Republicans, red states vs blue states or rich vs poor. Just look at the tea party and the occupy movements, both demonized by the press, government and in public opinion. Or look at the history of the USA, Washington used the Army to put down the Whiskey rebellion successfully, Lincoln used the
Re: (Score:2)
There are around 300 million firearms in the United States.
Of which, only about what 1000 can be expected to rise up in rebellion, and be summarily put down.
But by all means, keep serving the myth that america is more free because small arms are widely available. By believing this myth you support the continued reign of the oligarchs and their attempts to suppress the rule of the people. After all, why do the hard work of protesting when you can just claim that your freedom is upheld by guns you will never use? Continue to comfort yourself with the lie.
We do both... (Score:2)
We protest, we call our selected officials, and we maintain the final veto.
Re: (Score:2)
In many other democracies, similar provocations from the government would have the people out on the street in mass protest. Why is this not happening in the US? I think the problem is people who lay claim to some violent overthrow of the government. Perhaps they do it inadvertently, perhaps encouraging compliance with the regime is intentional. But whatever the motivation:
(a) Claiming that legal access to small arms makes the US somehow exceptional as a democracy an
Re: (Score:2)
There are around 300 million firearms in the United States. The US military has under 8000 armored vehicles that could even remotely considered "tanks"
If the people of the united states rose up against their government, it would be no contest. The military would lose very quickly. This is the point of the Right to bare arms. There can be no military coup in this country while the populace is so armed.
This is the Founders' logic. The thing they didn't understand is that in the US all these assholes are responsible to the people anyway.
If all 300 million Americans actually want Obama to stop the metadata collection then all they have to do is send him a Congress that says "fuck Metadata collection." We can do this in November. Two years from now we get to replace Obama. Hell in practical terms we could do this tomorrow simply by refusing to go to work until Obama resigns. General Strikes c an be quite eff
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, ....
See Vietname, Afghanistan, and Iraq for example of victory. Tanks are useful for attacking and over-running. But to maintain control, usuallty devolves to rifles.
Re: (Score:2)
Enjoy your predator drones flown by an enemy that doesn't give a shit about holding territitory as long as it can kill your ass any time of the day or night, 'O clutcher of Tiger Stones.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think American's hobbyists could take down a Predator drone?
And well, sure, the drones reduces the lives we've lost in the combat zones. But they've done very little to achieve victory or control.
Re: (Score:2)
A drone? What about any significant numbers of a fleet of drones? What are the hobbyist chances of taking down a spy satellite?
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think American's hobbyists could take down a Predator drone?
With what?
They're big planes with multiple redundancies so firearms probably won't punch a big enough hole to take the damn things down. There's a reason it's news when the Taliban/Iran/whomever takes one out with firearms. Rockets could work, but launching them within the borders of the US would be dumb because rocket fire is incredibly easy to back trace. They'll know exactly where to send the SWAT team two seconds after you fire the rocket.
Using electronic means is probably dumb because electronic signal
Re: (Score:2)
Let me fix that real quick:
> predator drones paid for by your money, assembled and directed by Joe Schmoe and Jane Doe
Don't give up because your left arm can't wrestle down your right arm; rather try to stop hitting yourself with your right arm and the issue becomes moot.
Re: (Score:2)
"so damn your rights"
The EFF, ACLU, and Rand Paul asked for an injunction, and they got it.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait....
You're telling me that NSA has stopped it's monitoring? This is news to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Gun nuts annoy me for two reasons.
1) They are convinced their firearms scare the Army. The Army does not give two shits about you, all your buddies, and your AR-15s combined. It does not matter how many after-market parts you added. Since WW1 the Army has fought no wars where enemies armed with firearms caused most casualties. Hippy-artist-types scare the shit out of the Army because they can design creative booby-traps, and creative booby-traps were the VC's bread and butter. Iraqi and Afghani insurgents,
Re: (Score:2)
"How can congress make it go away without getting a constitutional amendment ratified?"
By repealing the law authorizing the activity claimed to be unconstitutional. STOPPING unconstitutional activity does not require a constitutional amendment.
At that point any further action on the injunction is moot, since the law would then match what the injunction is asking for.
Need to follow the proper approach (Score:2)
Someone needs to bring a suit through the lower Federal courts and the appellate level. That's how to have a chance of getting a Supreme Court review.
I know very little with regards to this stuff, only that the Supreme Court rarely hears cases directly (the Bush Jr./Gore election was one time that I know of).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Read the summary! What is this? Slashdot?
I gleaned over the summary, noticing the lack of a full appeal. That's what was missing in my opinion (IANAL opinion, call it one cent...) and the only thing I wanted to raise attention to.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.freedomwatchusa.org... [freedomwatchusa.org]
The problem now is a new legal limbo - you can have all the Fourth Amendment you want but NSA color of law efforts have ensured your US domestic/international network use fair game.
Your legal protections cannot be weakened, removed and still stand but the NSA seems to have ensured no timely legal remedy from a vast long term illegal domestic surveillance network.
Many people saw a vast ill
Go back & get the stay lifted (Score:4, Interesting)
Ya want to see some action here? The plaintiffs should go back to judge Leon asking him to lift his stay. Since the Supreme's clearly don't view this as some kind of 'crisis' situation that needed their attention it is therefore logical that it isn't important enough to require a stay of the original ruling. If Leon lifted his stay the defendants would be appealing & moving the case forward far faster than the plaintiffs would.
Re:Go back & get the stay lifted (Score:5, Informative)
That is what the judge wrote in his order. The court order makes for some intense reading compared to most rulings.
The last paragraph in his order is about as strict as he could word it: I hereby give the Government fair notice that should my ruling be upheld, this order will go into effect forthwith. Accordingly, I fully expect that during the appellate process, which will consume at least the next six months, the Government will take whatever steps necessary to comply with this order when, and if, it is upheld. Suffice it to say, requesting further time to comply with this order months from now will not be well received and could result in collateral sanctions. /Signed/ RICHARD J. LEON, United States District Judge.
If he removed the stay he would need to allow the government time to implement the changes. This way the clock is already ticking.
Taxes? (Score:1)
Since the 4th is out the window, they cannot have the 16th without violating the 13th. Then again it has to be taken as a whole or the contract of the 'governed' is void.
Utterly gutless (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They just need more time for their corporate puppetmasters to tell them what to do.. that's all.
Re: (Score:2)
No they're just delayed with having new rubber stamps made.
Re: (Score:2)
They just need more time for their corporate puppetmasters to tell them what to do.. that's all.
No, they are doing exactly what their puppet masters want them to do. If they heard the case then they'd have to rule and something might change, not to mention they'd have a really hard time writing an opinion that says the surveillance in question doesn't violate the constitution. Refusing to hear the case means that the status quo is maintained for a while longer.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
FTA:
That's because the Supreme Court has taken cases before they went to the federal appellate level. Those disputes, which seemingly pale in comparison to the NSA surveillance at issue, involved the constitutionality of the US Sentencing Commission, the value of a floundering railroad, a coal strike, and the eviction of an Ohio tenant from a housing rental.
So pretty much, they say they take things that seem to have an immediacy. The thing is, not only does this affect everyone with a phone or Internet access, but it is affecting all of us right now. This is not a question over whether or not what the NSA was doing in the past violated the constitution, but that what they are doing right now violates the constitution. Thus providing an example that what they choose to allow to bypass the lower courts has nothing to do with importance, immediacy, or publ
Re: (Score:2)
This is not a question over whether or not what the NSA was doing in the past violated the constitution, but that what they are doing right now violates the constitution.
The question is whether or not there is a reason that a final ruling has to be given right now.
How is what the NSA is doing affecting you right now, such that they have to stop immediately? How will a, say, 1 year delay affect you? During that year, are you likely to be deprived of your life? Liberty? A large amount of money?
No? Then it's probably worthwhile to let the system work the way it was intended.
Re: (Score:3)
How is what the NSA is doing affecting you right now, such that they have to stop immediately?
They're responsible for egregiously violating nearly everyone's rights and the highest law of the land, something that they continue to make worse with each passing day. I can think of nothing more in need of a quick response.
You'd agree, if you cared at all about fundamental liberties.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're just impatient and young.
Assumptions completely without merit.
Truth. Much worse things have happened than NSA spying.
Just because X is worse than Y doesn't mean Y isn't bad.
Breaking the US system of laws to solve this one problem is stupid and shortsighted.
As the poster above has shown, solving this problem wouldn't break a damn thing, as the court has been known to make exceptions.
This should be an exception, because this sort of thing violates nearly everyone's fundamental liberties, and the constitution itself.
Re: (Score:2)
As for being impatient... I take it that that means you do not care that the NSA is violating nearly everyone's fundamental liberties and the constitution each and every day? If anyone isn't "impatient" about solving this problem, they're damn fools.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What totalitarian outcome? What the hell are you talking about?
Re: (Score:2)
First they came for the Socialists...
sys.us.judicial.fairness.accountability=0 (Score:1)
This works likes Tennis at US Open I think (Score:2)
Expiration invalid. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, right. They'll extend it indefinitely, it will never 'expire'. (Just like all the the other things that were supposed to 'expire'.)
Seems reasonable (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Go read the 4th Amendment please.
U.S. CONSTITUTION : AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION : ARTICLE IV
*"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported
by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Re: (Score:2)
The 4th also defines reasonable: "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
It doesn't fucking mean that "if you think it's ok, hey, IT'S OK!"
Football analogy (Score:2)
Marbury v Madison (Score:2)
So, what is the use of the Supreme Court these days? Certainly Roberts is no Marshall, instead he seems a throwback the original ineffectiveness of the Court.
Just as the Court was extremely courageous in deciding Korematsu [wikipedia.org] only once the war was over, the Supremes appear to wish to sit this one out.
I'd love to hear O'Conners', Thomas', and Scalia's opinions of this milque toast decision.
Re: (Score:2)
Sandra Day O'Connor hasn't been on the Supreme Court for eight years now. That glorified shitstain Sam Alito replaced her. While it would certainly be interesting to hear her opinion of the case, such opinion would carry no weight whatsoever.
Not a big deal (Score:2)
This doesn't really mean anything, and it would be surprising if SCOTUS actually did hear it now. The supreme court just basically said this needs to work its way through the normal appeals process. This might actually be better, since if you want to set a good and lasting precedent you should follow EVERY procedure in the most precedential way. Don't read too much into this decision.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Scalia should be impeached for prejudging cases.
Thomas should be impeached for open and obvious conflict of interests.
Roberts is an idiot, but I am not sure he's technically done anything wrong. And I read today that Kennedy had roots in the lobbyist industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Love to hear your opinion on the rest of the idiots. Considering if it were just those three, they could of chosen to hear this case I believe. So what's your damnable excuse for the other 5 besides petty partisan politics.
If you're still thinking that only the Democrats or only the Republicans are the problem, please realize YOU are the problem.
They're one and the same...
Re: (Score:3)
And yet they are 3 of the 5 that realized that Chris Matthews* is actually an employee of a corporation and that there is no actual way to distinguish his employer from a documentary film maker so they chose to allow Chris Matthews to continue to be employed by a corporation to do what he does and to let the documentary film maker also continue. However, you and Chris Matthews would be happier if all 9 had agreed that being employed by a corporation meant making no more politically oriented speech so that C
Re: (Score:1)
Nah, just repaint with Halloween theme because they seem to like scare the kiddies so much on a fear driven economy. Nip it in the bud, burn the money.
SOLUTION (Score:2)
We the citizens make a warrantless search of the White House and the Capitol building....
Re:Obama's a lame duck (Score:4, Informative)
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Re: (Score:3)
A President will be allowed to increase the power of the loose confederacy of those really in charge. Never to decrease. You think Presidents run the US? They're just executives, not kings.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there anything you DIDN'T get utterly wrong?
Here you go. [wikipedia.org] Wipe the froth off your lips and have a read.