• 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 refuses to hear case against NSA

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
The National Security Agency is defending itself in court this week. A US District Court judge in Washington, DC heard oral arguments in a case to put an end to some of the NSA's spying activities on Monday. The case covers the NSA's bulk telephone metadata collection program and its PRISM program, which is the collection of millions of Americans' Internet data. But the case doesn't just cover the constitutionality of the programs, but also whether or not the District Court can overrule the opinions of the top-secret FISA Courts that the NSA uses to get its warrants. On Thursday, the District Court in New York will hear another case, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, which also challenges the FISA Court rulings on the phone metadata collection program of millions of Verizon customers. On Monday, the Supreme Court denied a third case, brought by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, that also challenged the collection of Verizon phone records. That case would have been the first to challenge the NSA in the nation's highest court. RT's Sam Sacks takes us through the three cases and other forms of backlash the NSA has been facing since former government contractor Edward Snowden began leaking information on NSA surveillance.


Video @:
Supreme Court refuses to hear case against NSA - YouTube

Welcome to our surveillance state. Apparently even the USSSC is in the pockets of the NSA. Hopefully one of these cases will reach our highest court in the land.
 
Sure. When a cop is abusive - who do you call? The cops?

We just need to get used to it. If they can - they will.
 
Sure. When a cop is abusive - who do you call? The cops?

We just need to get used to it. If they can - they will.

---- See. They made me double post.
 
Live it up America. You asked for this.
 
I believe it was because it didn't go through the hoops.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center filed the challenge directly with the Supreme Court, arguing that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court had “exceeded its statutory jurisdiction when it ordered production of millions of domestic telephone records that cannot plausibly be relevant to an authorized investigation.”

The justices gave no reason for rejecting the group’s petition, but the unusual procedure of bypassing the lower courts probably played a role. Other, more conventional challenges to government surveillance programs are pending.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/u...urts-weigh-restraints-on-nsa-spying.html?_r=0

That would be my guess.
 
I can neither confirm or deny that NSA has the SCOTUS in their hip pockets.

SCOTUS has been suspect for some time now. Moves like this further the evidence chain.
 
Video @: [/FONT][/COLOR]Supreme Court refuses to hear case against NSA - YouTube

Welcome to our surveillance state. Apparently even the USSSC is in the pockets of the NSA. Hopefully one of these cases will reach our highest court in the land.

They refused to hear that case because they did not have original jurisdiction. The case does not involve ambassadors or diplomats, and a state is not a party.

"In the pockets of the NSA." :roll: Grow up.
 
Video @: [/FONT][/COLOR]Supreme Court refuses to hear case against NSA - YouTube

Welcome to our surveillance state. Apparently even the USSSC is in the pockets of the NSA. Hopefully one of these cases will reach our highest court in the land.

The Supreme Court didn't save you from the ACA, an intrusion into the life choices and freedoms of American citizens - what makes you think they'd save you from the NSA? But hey, you still have a right to abort a child and save him/her from a future under the ACA and surveillance.
 
The SCOTUS has developed a third wing since the brutal Citizens United decision, IMHO..
Roberts and Kennedy are now the center of the court,
and will soon attract one or two justices from each of the "party" wings in future decisions, I hope..

VRA was a split-decision leaning to the right..
ACA was a split-decision leaning to the right, only leaving the tax for the left..
This NSA decision defeats the current Amash coalition, which cuts across both parties, leaning to the right neo-cons..

Video @: [/FONT][/COLOR]Supreme Court refuses to hear case against NSA - YouTube

Welcome to our surveillance state. Apparently even the USSSC is in the pockets of the NSA. Hopefully one of these cases will reach our highest court in the land.
 
Video @: [/FONT][/COLOR]Supreme Court refuses to hear case against NSA - YouTube

Welcome to our surveillance state. Apparently even the USSSC is in the pockets of the NSA. Hopefully one of these cases will reach our highest court in the land.

I think that if the NSA, FBI, CIA, or any other acronym is collecting my phone and Internet data, then they should be responsible for that portion of my bill. I pay for the links and they should be required to pay proportionally, because they have not been authorized by me.
 
SCOTUS has been suspect for some time now. Moves like this further the evidence chain.

It really doesn't bother me one way or the other. What would one expect with a SCOTUS which is an activist court and doesn't give that much credence to original intent. It isn't like there aren't plenty of records, journals, bio's and papers to go back and find out what the writers of the Constitution and the amendments meant at the time. But that is largely thrown aside.
 
It really doesn't bother me one way or the other. What would one expect with a SCOTUS which is an activist court and doesn't give that much credence to original intent. It isn't like there aren't plenty of records, journals, bio's and papers to go back and find out what the writers of the Constitution and the amendments meant at the time. But that is largely thrown aside.

*shrug* I don't see why "original intent" should be treated as sacred truth. We don't live in the same world they did. Just one example, this very message board. The internet has enormous ramifications regarding interstate commerce that nobody could have even imagined 200 years ago. Or air travel.
 
*shrug* I don't see why "original intent" should be treated as sacred truth. We don't live in the same world they did. Just one example, this very message board. The internet has enormous ramifications regarding interstate commerce that nobody could have even imagined 200 years ago. Or air travel.

True, but the framers left us a means to legally change the constitution and that is by amendment. It is not by interpretation to change the meaning of what was written to suit a judges whims of what should be. It is like the law, the administration is suppose to enforce the law as written by congress, not to change it. By imposing interpretations of the constitution that is not there or meant or by choosing not to enforce the law as written or deviate portions of it, we have ceased being a nation of laws governed by the constitution.

Time to pick up the granddaughter from school, I shall return.
 
James Madison has been rolling in his grave for many years, and this one will accelerate the process.

The federal judiciary is utterly corrupted. :( Liberty dies to thunderous applause.
 
The SCOTUS has developed a third wing since the brutal Citizens United decision, IMHO..
Roberts and Kennedy are now the center of the court,
and will soon attract one or two justices from each of the "party" wings in future decisions, I hope..

VRA was a split-decision leaning to the right..
ACA was a split-decision leaning to the right, only leaving the tax for the left..
This NSA decision defeats the current Amash coalition, which cuts across both parties, leaning to the right neo-cons..

The NSA works for Obama. He could fix it with a phone call. Why hasn't he?
 
The NSA works for Obama. He could fix it with a phone call. Why hasn't he?

Worked for Bush too, and he didn't make that phone call either. So long as the Republocrats are in charge, the NSA ain't gonna change.
 
Last edited:
Worked for Bush too, and he didn't make that phone call either. So long as the Republocrats are in charge, the NSA ain't gonna change.

The Republicans aren't in charge of Obama's cabinet.
 
The Republicans aren't in charge of Obama's cabinet.

Nope, they were in charge of Bush's. And as I said, he never made the phone call either. This stuff didn't spring up under Obama, Obama just proliferated it. Republocrat control will proliferate out of control government.
 
Nope, they were in charge of Bush's. And as I said, he never made the phone call either. This stuff didn't spring up under Obama, Obama just proliferated it. Republocrat control will proliferate out of control government.

Bush isn't president. Is this just more, "but...but...but Bush did it'"?
 
Back
Top Bottom