• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Surveillance Law

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
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!
 
In a 5-to-4 decision that broke along ideological lines

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


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


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.
 
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.
 
Sorry, wrong thread...
 
Last edited:
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:
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?
 
My original comment was just about the usual 5/4 vote.

So, it seems Obama is Conservative enough to get support on this from the Conservative judges and not the Liberal ones.

I feel like this should mean something but what? Next life I'll have to try being a full retail philosopher.



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.
 
My original comment was just about the usual 5/4 vote.

So, it seems Obama is Conservative enough to get support on this from the Conservative judges and not the Liberal ones.

I feel like this should mean something but what? Next life I'll have to try being a full retail philosopher.

I think it means that when a silk-stockinged liberal gets control of government power, they quickly realize that utopia isn't possible and pragmatism is necessary - they are afraid to announce the error of their thinking, so they continue the practices of their predecessors in silence.
 
I think it's pretty basic legalese.

If there is no cause of action (someone must have been harmed in some way) or if there is no way to remedy the harm even if they can prove the harm, then the courts can do nothing.

It's amazing how dumb the typical lefties are on the SCOTUS, though. They can't even understand the basic tenets of law.
 
I think it means that when a silk-stockinged liberal gets control of government power, they quickly realize that utopia isn't possible and pragmatism is necessary - they are afraid to announce the error of their thinking, so they continue the practices of their predecessors in silence.

Utopia? What the **** are you talking about?
 
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.

In theory, but I think this decision says a great deal. There is a conservative school of thought that the amendments related to crime only apply to criminal cases and then the right is only a right to have ill-gotten gains from being used against you. In other words, the police can kick in your door and take your stuff under the Constitution just so long as they don't use it against you. Your only remedy would be to sue them for the trespass and the value of the goods. It sounds to me, without having read the opinion, that is the gauntlet they are throwing down here--the government can do it but any rights violation only applies if you are charged (i.e. legally harmed) and since these people were not charged with anything, they have no standing. If that is not in the opinion then I suspect that is what they would have gotten to in the end.
 
I think it's pretty basic legalese.

If there is no cause of action (someone must have been harmed in some way) or if there is no way to remedy the harm even if they can prove the harm, then the courts can do nothing.

It's amazing how dumb the typical lefties are on the SCOTUS, though. They can't even understand the basic tenets of law.

An invasion of privacy is actual harm, and a remedy might be that the government cease and desist.
 
Are you saying liberals want to make a "utopia"?

Utopia would be good in all cases but what Type of utopia is the question. Everyone has a different perfect world. Either way it is never possible :lol:
 
I think it's pretty basic legalese.

If there is no cause of action (someone must have been harmed in some way) or if there is no way to remedy the harm even if they can prove the harm, then the courts can do nothing.

It's amazing how dumb the typical lefties are on the SCOTUS, though. They can't even understand the basic tenets of law.

It's amazing how much conservatives support big government while claiming the opposite.
 
Back
Top Bottom