Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge Strikes Down Part of Patriot Act

Posted by samzenpus on from the but-what-about-the-terrorists dept.

Shining Celebi writes "U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero ruled in favor of the ACLU and struck down a portion of the revised USA PATRIOT Act this morning, forcing investigators to go through the courts to obtain approval before ordering ISPs to give up information on customers, instead of just sending them a National Security Letter. In the words of Judge Marrero, this use of National Security Letters 'offends the fundamental constitutional principles of checks and balances and separation of powers.'"

6 of 673 comments (clear)

  1. Patriot act ISN'T patriotic. by infonography · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This act is contrary to everything that makes America who it is. At least they had the marginally good sense to put a sunset on it. I think they knew it would be kicked out at some point anyway. Good riddance. Patriot Act supporters are whats wrong in America.

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
  2. More partisan crap? by keraneuology · · Score: 4, Interesting
    While I agree 100% with the decision, I can't help but wonder if this judge (a Clinton appointee) made a ruling based on his true conscience and understanding of Constitutional law or if the thought "gee, if I strike this down I can make the Republicans look bad" crossed his mind, even if only for an instant.

    Courts these days have very little to do with a codified rule of law - look at all of the Supreme Court cases where major changes in national course have been made by a single person voting along party lines.

    This ruling is inevitably going to be appealed, since the government has unlimited funds to drag things through court indefinitely (zero accoutability) and will eventually be brought before the USSC where it will probably be ultimately overturned on a 5-4 vote along party lines. Personally, I think that any case that isn't decided by a margin of at least three should never be allowed to be considered as precedent, and that if a judicial panel can't rule by at least a margin of two then the law should be immediately thrown out as being too vague.

    --
    If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
  3. Re:Absolutely shameless plug by dada21 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I find the ACLU terribly racist (believing people should be grouped together rather than be individuals) and unconcerned with real direction of freedom from force.

    For me, I prefer the Institute for Justice, where I donate my money towards real lawyers who get out and trample on the State that tries to trample on us. I'd never give to the ACLU, which has a history of supporting aggressive government growth when it appeals to them, versus the IJ which works against government in ever lawsuit it files or every defendant it defends.

  4. Re:Contribute by rainman_bc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The ACLU challenged this law, and hence brought about this ruling. Hopefully, they will be successful in challenging similar laws in the future. The sad part is though that government can pass a law, knowing full well that it'll take SCOTUS four years before striking it down.

    IMO that's a BIG problem. It means essentially that they can pass any unconstitutional law and SCOTUS will take four years before they'll strike it down as unconstitutional. That IMO is really bad.
    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  5. One clause at a time, if we have to. by KiltedKnight · · Score: 4, Interesting
    As many have said before, The Patriot Act is anything but patriotic.

    Various parts of The Government Intrusion Act have been struck down over the years, right from the time it was first passed. I was hoping they'd let it just go away through its sunset clause, but they rammed a new version through. So now we start the process anew... go after one part at a time. It may take a while, but it will all eventually go away because Congress and the President overstepped their constitutional authority.

    --
    OCO is Loco
  6. Re:Contribute by timmy+the+large · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The ACLU working with the Texas NRA has actively been fighting the use of profiling white males in the Houston area. These men are pulled over by the police and searched for a firearm. If a firearm is found it is confiscated and the man is arrested. This is in direct contridiction to state law and rulings by the Texas judiciary on the law. The ACLU and the TNRA are fighting to put a stop to this action.

    The worst part is that the local DA and the police know it is illegal to do this and do it anyway.

    Personally I think we need both the ACLU and the NRA, and as many other groups that want to fight for our civil liberties.