Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge Denies Administration Request To Delay ACLU Metadata Lawsuit

Posted by Unknown on from the let-the-battle-begin dept.

sl4shd0rk writes "Federal Judge William Pauley has dismissed an Obama Administration request to delay a hearing on Verizon/NSA data sifting. The ACLU has argued that the sifting is not authorized by statute and even if it were it would still be unconstitutional. The Obama Administration requested the delay on the grounds it needed more time to search through its classified material to determine what was suitable for disclosure." See also the case docket. Motions must be filed by August 26th, and oral arguments begin on November 1st.

9 of 107 comments (clear)

  1. Well that's it then. by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Funny

    In hot water for all that monitoring of my veeblefetzers, potrzebies and axolotls.

    It's a great day for antidisestablishmentarianism and neoanarchalsocialrepublicanists.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  2. Good job, your honor! by intermodal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now if we could just get the wheels of justice to turn quicker on this one. Every day this is delayed is potentially one more day before this nonsense is put to an end.

    Though realistically, the NSA will keep doing it and just try harder to hide it. It's quite clear they operate outside of any actual level of control.

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    1. Re:Good job, your honor! by intermodal · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Administration and NSA didn't care about the constitution before Snowden, they're not going to start now.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  3. Re:It's Booosh's!!!! fault! by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lazy. Obama's not blameless. But all evidence at this point suggests he was following the terrible law as terribly written. Bush specifically did the same thing circumventing courts and warrants entirely, though the ACLU "lacked standing" to take him to court about it. Obama promised an end to warrant-less domestic wiretaps when he ran in 2008. That's what we got. I'm pretty much on the ACLU's side about most legal questions, and Obama hasn't been.

  4. The Constitution is clear on this by WCMI92 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Government has to get a warrant in an OPEN COURT. It has to describe SPECIFICALLY the person or things to be searched and seized. Government has no rights, the People have ALL rights. Government has no more authority to collect everyone's e-mails than it does to send a black van down each street, pull the mail from everyone's mailbox and photocopy it...

    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.

    I don't see any "Because TERRORISTS!", or "Because Someone doesn't like Obama" exceptions in there, do you?

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
    1. Re:The Constitution is clear on this by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hear, Hear!

      Unfortunately, judges who will enforce the constitution are few and far between. Every sitting member of the supreme court has already failed to do so on multiple occasions.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re:The Constitution is clear on this by WCMI92 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unfortunately, judges who will enforce the constitution are few and far between. Every sitting member of the supreme court has already failed to do so on multiple occasions.

      It's way past time for Americans to stop allowing judges to have the kind of absolute power they have right now. It's also way past time for Americans to accept by default orders handed down by government in general.

      The Federal Government doesn't have rights. It has enumerated POWERS. The Constitution is written as such that they have those powers (plus extra ones amended in) and no more. If we want to put a stop to what the NSA and this unlawful Regime in DC are doing to us we need to INSIST that the government restrict itself to those enumerated powers.

      --
      Corporatism != Free Market
    3. Re:The Constitution is clear on this by spire3661 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Constitution was intended to be interpreted by the lay public. You dont have to be a lawyer to understand law and governance. Democracy means WE are the government. Having educated people point out the finer points of law is fine, but any layman can see the decisions the Supremes have made in regard to corporate citizenship, the commerce clause and FISA courts are very much opposed to the Constitution.

      --
      Good-bye
  5. Re:It's Booosh's!!!! fault! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lazy. Obama's not blameless. But all evidence at this point suggests he was following the terrible law as terribly written. Bush specifically did the same thing circumventing courts and warrants entirely, though the ACLU "lacked standing" to take him to court about it. Obama promised an end to warrant-less domestic wiretaps when he ran in 2008. That's what we got. I'm pretty much on the ACLU's side about most legal questions, and Obama hasn't been.

    BULLSHIT

    Obama has NO problem violating the law when he wants to.

    Delay implementing Obamacare despite what the law says? No problem.

    Stop deporting illegal aliens despite what the law says? No problem.

    Continue monitoring US citizens despite Candidate Obama calling it "unconstitutional"? No problem.

    Keep Gitmo open despite Candidate Obama calling it "unconstitutional"? No problem.

    Law? Yeah. Obama cares so fucking much about the law he conducts "extrajudicial killings" of US citizens.

    Don't post crap that Obama's just following the law when it's obvious the law means NOTHING to Obama. You just want to excuse Obama for doing things you probably excoriated Bush for.

    Double standard much?