Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Refuses To Hear EPIC Challenge To NSA Surveillance
Trailrunner7 writes "The challenge to the NSA's domestic surveillance program filed with the Supreme Court by the Electronic Privacy Information Center ended Monday, with the court refusing to consider the challenge at all. EPIC had filed the challenge directly with the Supreme Court rather than going through the lower courts. EPIC, a non-profit organization involved in privacy policy matters, had asked the court to vacate an order from a judge in the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Court that had enabled the NSA's collection of hundreds of millions of Verizon call records under the so-called metadata collection program. The challenge hinged on the idea that the FISC had gone outside of its authority in granting the order."
It just wasn't EPIC enough I guess.
I hate it when that happens.
Sounds like we're going to need a reliable supplier of pitchforks soon.
EPIC tried to jump the line - they didn't follow the proper appeals process. That is highly frowned upon by the legal system and rarely succeeds. No surprise in this outcome. And nobody should read anything into it either way. One of the existing or future challenges may succeed as it works its way through the court system.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Citizens have rights.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
EPIC had filed the challenge directly with the Supreme Court rather than going through the lower courts.
This is the issue. The Supremes like you to work your way up through the lower courts as it is the proper procedure. If they accepted even a fraction of cases that didn't work the system the way it was designed, they would have a HUGE case load that could have been solved at a lower level.
EPIC will whine about this, but they should have been able to predict the outcome.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
God forbid SCOTUS make a decision that in any way matters, challenges the status quo in any way, or requires them to work late. Unless they're doing something to benefit the powerful corporations, best to just ignore the issue altogether and hope the lower courts aren't so lazy.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
This SCOTUS only intervenes if it helps a "Conservative"* cause, eg Bush V Gore.
* - capital c
That's indeed how it works, like a Bruce Lee movie: you start with the lowest ranked minion, then work your way up. Except you're not working, a very expensive team of lawyers is. Ka-ching, Ka-ching and Ka-ching. You don't get to jump to the End Boss without racking up a huge, huge legal bill.
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
Where is the proper place to start the appeals process?
>>> EPIC tried to jump the line - they didn't follow the proper appeals process. That is highly frowned upon by the legal system and rarely succeeds.
Isn't the NSA and secret courts circumventing the constitution and these people swore an oath to the protect the constitution So the regime can do what it wants but the people must jump through hoops.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
It's been apparent for a while now that there needs to be a way to get the supreme court to decide whether a law is actually constitutional or not, regardless of issues such as "standing." Far too often, there's either not enough evidence that a particular party was harmed (I guess infringing upon people's freedoms isn't good enough for them.), thanks to the fact that everything is done in secrecy, or it takes a ridiculously long period of time to get the court's attention.
Why, yes, I'll buy some of your gold, Glenn!
They probably will not hear it because FISC is not valid. Asking them to vacate an order, gives aknowledgement to the FISC validity.
Instead, they should have challanged the validity of the organization itself.
> How many cases are appealed to the Supreme Court each year and how many cases does the Court hear?
> The Court receives approximately 10,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari each year. The Court grants and hears oral argument in about 75-80 cases.
They only have time to hear less than 1% of the petitions. It is redicoulus to make a big deal out of one denial. Getting denied could be because of a lot of reasons:
* They are tying to skip lower courts.
* They might already be plan on hearing a case on a similar issue.
* They anticipate actions from Congress, so no need to deliberate on previous laws when they are about to change.
* This particular group might be representing a weak case. Maybe they don't have as much damages as other groups they could take or are pursuing a legal angle of the case without much merit.
* The particular case might not have broad enough ramifications to wasn't the court's time.
One way or another, this will end up in the SCOTUS.
...the last box.
All the other boxes are failing or have already failed.
Unless they're doing something to benefit the powerful corporations [wikipedia.org]
You do realize that Citizens United is a corporation that was created for the specific purpose of advancing political speech, right? It's no different than MoveOn.org, it was just a bunch of like-minded people that got together to advance something they believe in. The easiest way to band together in our political-legal system is to create a corporation. The NRA is a corporation. So is the Sierra Club. Labor Unions too, they're almost always incorporated. And let's not forget the press, the majority of which are for-profit corporations, like the Washington Post or New York Times.
People don't forfeit their free speech rights when they decide to band together for a common cause under the guise of a corporation. Citizens United v. FEC was a direct response to the FECs attempt to squelch the free speech of a group of citizens who wished to air opinions that were critical of someone standing for elective office. The freedom to air such opinions is the textbook definition of free speech and I can't fathom a reason why anyone would wish to silence such speech.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The whole "working your way through the courts" process can be radically shortened if you're willing to play the game. To wit:
1. File in Texas.
2. Claim less than $25 in damages.
3. Lose in small claims court.
4. Texas law provides ZERO appeals for cases this small, so
5. Go straight to the Supreme Court.
The SC has previously heard at least one notable case that got there through this mechanism.
No one believes in fake courts. Orders come from dictators.
Viva new Soviet State -USA
The Supreme Court is there to give definitive interpretations of the Constitution. Some time back they interpreted the 2nd Amendment to mean that individuals have an individual right to arm themselves. I would have disagreed, as would have many scholars. But that's water under the bridge now; the Supreme Court has spoken and their interpretation stands.
Now we are debating the meaning of the 4th Amendment, and the Supreme Court is giving a strong hint that no search by the Federal Government is unreasonable as long as the Government thinks it's done for national security. So no use fighting this in courts. You'll have to fight it at the ballot box.
Well...maybe 10,000 people per justice should visit them at their homes and ask them to reconsider.
The court has decided that in order to do their job most effectively, it's best that they give congress a chance to do theirs first. While congress is in the middle of debating the issue, it's counter-productive for SCOTUS to provoke pointless power struggles all the time. See "the chief justice has made his decision, now let him enforce it".
It's quite possible that congress will address the issue and there will be no need for SCOTUS to get in their face. If congress passes something that's not acceptable, SCOTUS has positioned themselves to have the last word.
The same Supreme Court that had one of their members accept an 850,000 dollar bribe to decide Citizens United? The system has completely broken down, there are no checks and balances anymore.
The hard task now is to get rid of that SCOTUS.
Read up on some of the Nazi judges and lawyers.
Some were killed by American bombers.
Good luck!
The whole premise that supreme court judges are somehow going to be independent of politics when they are, in fact, selected by politicians is naive. The whole premise that a judge WOULD stand up against the government and COULD be adversarial of the government when, in fact, they rise up THROUGH the government, are government employees, and are government vetted is naive.
Stop being naive. Stop believing in the government. Stop believing in our system of government. Childhood's end.
And this was not .....expected in a court led by the tea party??
I wonder if any of the Supreme Court Justices had scary phone calls or mysterious meeting with NSA personnel in the recent past.
You are correct that it was doomed from the beginning, as any court observer would see.
The Constitution is very clear on the matter, so much that even non-lawyers can understand it:
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction"
There are only two kinds of cases that can start at the supreme court: those affecting ambassadors and other specific people, and those cases brought by a state. Everything else must be an appeal of a lower court that has been brought to the supreme court.
Since they were bringing it up as an original complaint, but it doesn't affect one of those people or have a state as a party, there is no constitutional way the SCOTUS could accept the case. The original case must be heard at a lower level, then the supreme court could hear the appeal.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
GOVERNMENT DOES WORK! most the time! Any form of government can work well -- all that matters is how it is administered. (Ben Franklin said as much.) If you let corporations and the powerful run the government, it will work just fine; FOR THEM! A healthy democracy is going to have inefficiency by the nature of that system but it is worth the price of having the most people served fairly - in that they get what they want; now they may want stupid things-- but then it is serving the most people the best way we know of, right? I find it almost laughable when I read of "tyranny by the majority" because that is not so horrible; one can do better, but it's still not that bad. How does the majority have their will determined and implemented? Well, that is not a simple or clean process in itself so it's not going to "work" like every individual would like.
Just believing in a democratic government is like believing in your driving skills while you are texting on your phone. If we don't have enough people paying attention at the wheel bad things happen. It doesn't help when idiots elect incompetent officials who wreck everything then campaign against the mess they created (and likely profited from in the process.)
Again, as Franklin also said all democracies fall into despotism and it's the probably majority's fault. Unless we can wake up the majority it's hopeless and will need a total reboot. The whole principle they based it upon was to civilize revolutions that naturally occur throughout human history. It's still the goal today; but the difference is that it's about prolonging the illusion for as long as possible while positioning the elite to survive the inevitable collapse (if well managed, it'll be less of a collapse and more of a morph into something else. which is what we've been having so far.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I'd say this is quite necessary, as precedent may need to be set. Mere laws are unlikely to do much.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
History repeats itself.
Hepting vs. AT&T
Snowden's revelations are merely more specifics coming to light, this has been fought in court before, recently.
In 2008 Congress amends the FISA act to absolve the telecom companies (granting "retroactive immunity") of liability for VOLUNTARILY HELPING the government conduct illegal warrantless mass surveillance. Remember we are talking about fiber optic taps here to listen to everyone, not forwarding specific data pursuant to a warrant or court order.
Here's the trick: the FISA law was amended two years into the Hepting court case. Why the retroactive immunity clause? Because EFF was WINNING.
Never mind that the scope of the surveillance cited in the case FAR EXCEEDED the conditions of FISA. Never mind that the case was in progress. A circuit judge decided that the FISA law was applicable, and (even more shocking to me) allowed Congressional action to disrupt and destroy an ongoing Judicial due process of law.
Blackmail?
I'm running out of alternative theories.
___
Hepting vs.AT&T (2006-2012, R.I.P.)
"In Hepting v. AT&T, EFF sued the telecommunications giant on behalf of its customers for violating privacy law by collaborating with the NSA in the massive, illegal program to wiretap and data-mine Americans' communications."
"Evidence in the case included undisputed evidence provided by former AT&T telecommunications technician Mark Klein showing AT&T has routed copies of Internet traffic to a secret room in San Francisco controlled by the NSA."
[...] "In July, 2008, after a long and contentious battle in Congress, the government and AT&T were awarded the so-called retroactive immunity from liability under the controversial FISA Amendments Act (FAA), which was enacted in response to our court victories in Hepting."
[...] "In June of 2009, a federal judge dismissed Hepting and dozens of other lawsuits against telecoms. EFF appealed that decision but it was affirmed, and in October, 2012, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case."
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
The truth is that most anyone who is not psychotic
understands the difference between what is right and
what is wrong, and you don't need a degree in law or
a set of revised statutes on your bookshelf to know what
is right and what is wrong. The supreme court of the US
is not in business to decide what is right or what is wrong,
it is in business to suppress the common people and ensure that
those in power remain in power. Make no mistake, the supreme court
knows well who its masters are, and they know they are charged with
serving those masters and NOT with serving the majority of the population.
All this "legal" business is designed to do several things :
1) keep the peasants in line.
2) keep attorneys employed.
When ( not if ) civilization disintegrates, a someone who
used to be a lawyer will be useless and had better quickly
learn to make a credible claim that their old job was anything other
than being a lawyer. Try to remember this when you contemplate
any legal situations. Lawyers are an artificial construct which costs
society far more than society benefits, and the world would
be better off without lawyers, more often than not1. This is true to
a greater extent in the US than anywhere else, where the
population of lawyers per capita is far in excess of most other
countries in the world.