Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Surveillance Law

  1. #1
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Surveillance Law

    In a 5-to-4 decision that broke along ideological lines, the Supreme Court on Tuesday turned back a challenge to a federal law that authorized intercepting international communications involving Americans.

    Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said that the journalists, lawyers and human rights advocates who challenged the constitutionality of the law could not show they had been harmed by it and so lacked standing to sue. Their fear that they would be subject to surveillance in the future was too speculative to establish standing, he wrote.


    Read more @:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/us/politics/supreme-court-rejects-challenge-to-fisa-surveillance-law.html?ref=us&_r=0

    Yayyyy! We can tap you and watch you and all! Why can the gov do that? Because it doesnt "harm" you. So much for privacy!


  2. #2
    Discount Philosopher
    specklebang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Last Seen
    06-05-14 @ 08:26 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,524

    Re: Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Surveillance Law

    In a 5-to-4 decision that broke along ideological lines

    Interesting that the SCOTUS supported Obama in his Big Brother strategy.


    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Read more @: [/FONT][/COLOR]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/us/politics/supreme-court-rejects-challenge-to-fisa-surveillance-law.html?ref=us&_r=0

    Yayyyy! We can tap you and watch you and all! Why can the gov do that? Because it doesnt "harm" you. So much for privacy!

  3. #3
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,445

    Re: Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Surveillance Law

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Yayyyy! We can tap you and watch you and all! Why can the gov do that? Because it doesnt "harm" you. So much for privacy!
    Last I checked, the law required that one party of the communications be outside of the US and one party (perhaps the same) be on the terrorist watch list. A summary warrant is then obtained through special channels prior to the tap. In order for any evidence obtained from the tap to be used in court against someone, a standard proper warrant must be obtained purely on information gained before the quasi-warrant tap or information obtained as such is not allowed in a court.


    That's not any and all(!)
    Last edited by ecofarm; 02-26-13 at 07:25 PM.

  4. #4
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,194

    Re: Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Surveillance Law

    From the summary given, the court took the position that those filing the case had no standing since they had not proved any damage to themselves as a result of the law. It doesn't, necessarily, follow that if someone does file a case where they can demonstrate harm as a result of the law that the court would not take it up in the future.

  5. #5
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,194

    Re: Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Surveillance Law

    Quote Originally Posted by specklebang View Post
    In a 5-to-4 decision that broke along ideological lines

    Interesting that the SCOTUS supported Obama in his Big Brother strategy.
    If I'm not mistaken, this matter was first raised during the Bush administration when it was revealed that they had instituted warrantless wiretaps in situations where at least one of the parties was out of country.

  6. #6
    Discount Philosopher
    specklebang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Last Seen
    06-05-14 @ 08:26 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,524

    Re: Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Surveillance Law

    Bush is 4 years gone now and Obama has embraced everything Bush loved and even added a few twists to it.


    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    If I'm not mistaken, this matter was first raised during the Bush administration when it was revealed that they had instituted warrantless wiretaps in situations where at least one of the parties was out of country.

  7. #7
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,194

    Re: Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Surveillance Law

    Quote Originally Posted by specklebang View Post
    Bush is 4 years gone now and Obama has embraced everything Bush loved and even added a few twists to it.
    I don't dispute that, I simply point out that I believe this court case was initiated as a result of the Bush administration's policy - it's not an attack on Obama as opposed to an attack on the power of any administration operating under the same policy.

  8. #8
    Irremovable Intelligence
    Removable Mind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    23,557

    Re: Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Surveillance Law

    Sorry, wrong thread...
    Last edited by Removable Mind; 02-26-13 at 07:54 PM.

  9. #9
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

    Re: Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Surveillance Law

    The conservatives always side with law and order--it is why those middle amendments have been gutted into virtual meaninglessness by the side of the aisle that is strict constructionistic only when it suits them.
    Last edited by Fisher; 02-26-13 at 08:13 PM.

  10. #10
    Sage
    KevinKohler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    CT
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,992
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Surveillance Law

    So....POTENTIAL for harm is not reason enough to strike down an existing law, or even alter it?


    Then why are we still talking about guns, eh? Since all they are is POTENTIAL for harm?
    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    Reports indicate that everyone knew he was hauling a bunch of guns up there. But, since you brought it up, there's something which should be illegal: guns that breakdown.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •