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."
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."
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.
I have got to laugh at this level of ignorance. You just might want to review what happened during that time frame.
1. Election happened.
2. Democrats cried 'foul', there must be a recount.
3. Much legal wrangling and counting went on. A nice summary was
Republicans - This has to go to the Supreme Court.
Democrats - Nope, it's too early for the Supreme Count. We can handle it at a lower level.
4. Repeat step 3 until time is almost out.
5. The case finally gets to the Supreme Court.
6. Verdict boiled down to 'A new vote should have been done, however, there is no longer enough time for it so the current count stands'
Hmm... Seems to me that the Democrats shot themselves in the foot there during step 3. But then again, the policy that they had on recounts in generals for close elections was
a. Perform recount.
b. If recount not in their favor, go to step a.
c. If recount in their favor, no matter how small the margin is, then scream 'Stop! The recount is done! We won!'.
But in the case of Florida, their usual tactics failed. Too bad, so sad.
Yes - you're right. The intel community is indeed trashing the constitution. But - if we are going to defend the constitution, then we need to do it in a constitutional manner. File suit, and win - OR, file suit, be defeated, appeal, be defeated again, appeal again, THEN argue your case in front of the Supremes.
Hey, I don't really like it. It's time consuming, and wasteful, as you suggest. The only other way to put the NSA in it's place, is to have congress just pass some laws defining what is legal, and start defunding the illegal activities.
The remaining alternative is wasteful in terms of human life, as well as money and material. Revolutions can be like that.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
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 $25 in damages.
3. Lose in small claims court.
4. Texas law provides ZERO appeals for cases this small, so
5. Go straight to the Supreme Court.
The SC has previously heard at least one notable case that got there through this mechanism.
IIRC, the "lower level" was a Republican governor and a Republican-stacked State Supreme Court.
Why is it that you can get arrested for smoking a joint, but when it comes to violating the constitution it seems that the worst punishment is "we'll cut your funding"?
Because the CIA funds its black ops with money from drug running, so it has to remain very illegal to keep the prices up.
Who do you think is really controlling things, the Congress or the permanent bureaucracy that makes the outcomes of elections largely meaningless?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
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