Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

U.S. Supreme Court Declines To Rule On Constitutionality of Bulk Surveillance

Posted by Unknown on from the try-again-later dept.

An anonymous reader writes "On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of the National Security Agency's bulk acquisition and storage of phone record metadata. The petition (PDF) for a Supreme Court ruling was submitted as a result of U.S. District Judge Richard Leon staying his ruling (PDF), pending an appeal, in a suit in which he concluded that collection of phone metadata without probable cause violated the Fourth Amendment. The plaintiffs had bypassed the federal appeals court and applied directly to the high court, given Judge Leon's admission that the case had significant national security interests at stake. The Supreme Court's decision not to rule on the case means that an appeal will need to be submitted to the federal appeals court as per protocol, but there is speculation that the mass surveillance issue will likely be addressed in the legislative and executive branches of government before the judicial branch weighs in. The provision allowing the bulk collection, Section 215 of the Patriot Act, expires June 1, 2015.'"

141 comments

  1. Constitutional Court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of "

    Seems like the US needs a Constitutional Court who rule on nothing else but constitutional matters, and cannot decline.

    1. Re:Constitutional Court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I second that motion, we need to get the system fixed. We need a anonymous way of communicating and making sure we have the populus accounted for. We bearly need representatives that oviously do not represent the well being of the republic or even the interests of the majority.

    2. Re:Constitutional Court by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not only are they a court purchased by corporate interests, they are intellectually weak and the lack any courage to do the right thing.

    3. Re:Constitutional Court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already decided that collection of telephone call metadata without a warrant was constitutional in the 1970s, so I imagine as far as they were concerned, this was ok.

    4. Re:Constitutional Court by nurb432 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That is one of the few mistakes our founders made. Allowing the court to ignore cases.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    5. Re:Constitutional Court by Frobnicator · · Score: 5, Informative

      That is one of the few mistakes our founders made. Allowing the court to ignore cases.

      Obviously you didn't read the article, nor understand the summary.

      The court did not ignore the case. There is a procedure. It starts at the circuit court. Then it goes through the appeals court, usually first with panel of 3, then the full appeals court. The SCOTUS is the final level of appeals.

      The process works as a vetting and refining system. The SCOTUS only gets involved in situations where different appeals courts have used differing standards or when there are certain controversial or seemingly contradictory situations. The district judge wanted to get around the procedures. It is very rarely successful except in cases where urgency is required and the implications are severe, such as the 'hanging chads' controversy. The court disagreed, wanting the case to go through the normal process.

      As with every issue that is a political hot topic, the SCOTUS will tend to wait to give congress a chance to address this before ruling. Often when Congress amends the law while a case is in progress, the appeal will simply remand it back to the district court with an order to follow the revised law rather than the old law.

      As of now, in the DC court, his initial ruling (that the bulk collection is unconstitutional) still stands, even though he put in a stay (delay before carrying out the order) in order to allow for appeals. If he felt so strongly he could have not accepted the stay, which would mean the government would need to implement the order immediately and the feds would have needed to petition for an emergency stay from a higher court.

      Right now the ruling is that the collection is unlawful. With the appeal denied so far, that decision stands. That is what we want, so don't complain about it.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    6. Re:Constitutional Court by nurb432 · · Score: 0

      Obviously you didn't read the article

      No, and i should not need to. if i do, then why bother having a news aggregation page with summaries in the first place?

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    7. Re:Constitutional Court by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 2

      You do realize there were almost 2 million federal cases last year? Even if the Supreme Court was in session 24/7 for the entire years, they'd have to hear arguments, rule, and write an opinion every 20 seconds to avoid ignoring any of them.

    8. Re:Constitutional Court by Sir_Sri · · Score: 2

      Not really no.

      By declining to take up the matter they can do so with comment (basically saying why they don't think it belongs) or they can say nothing and let lower court rulings stand.

      They are the last arbiters of the constitution, not the first, if they agree completely with a lower courts interpretation then they don't need to say anything, the lower court stands.

      Imagine this scenario. The government of a US state passes a law that prohibits carrying signs for protesting. Someone gets arrested, goes to court, the court tosses the law as being a clear violation of free speech. The government could try and appeal to a higher court (districts that would eventually lead to the supreme court). But if a higher court looks at it, and declines to take it, then the lower court ruling holds - passing a law against carrying signs is unconstitutional, and that is established in precedent in the law. Someone could try and appeal in future and it might get taken up by a future court, but it doesn't need to go directly to the supreme court because the supreme court is really the top of a pyramid of courts, and only need to take up a case if it's the lower court may have erred in its ruling.

    9. Re:Constitutional Court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      no, they have the courage to do the right thing and allow the appellate court to rule. The only time a level of appeal should be skipped is when there are differing opinions extant at the many appellate courts.

    10. Re:Constitutional Court by oraclese · · Score: 2

      Obviously you didn't read the article

      No, and i should not need to. if i do, then why bother having a news aggregation page with summaries in the first place?

      You must be new here...

    11. Re:Constitutional Court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure if it matters, since most of my posts to / are deleted anyway.

    12. Re:Constitutional Court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only are they a court purchased by corporate interests, they are intellectually weak and the lack any courage to do the right thing.

      You make some interesting assertions but you provide no evidence or even arguments to support your claims. Not sure how you got a +5 insughtful.

    13. Re:Constitutional Court by dcollins117 · · Score: 1

      That is one of the few mistakes our founders made.

      Another was to assume that subsequent political leaders would have the same personal integrity as they did and would strive to uphold the basic principles of the Constitution.

    14. Re:Constitutional Court by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      Well, I got it from the summary.

      The plaintiffs had bypassed the federal appeals court and applied directly to the high court, given Judge Leon's admission that the case had significant national security interests at stake. The Supreme Court's decision not to rule on the case means that an appeal will need to be submitted to the federal appeals court as per protocol,

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    15. Re:Constitutional Court by dryeo · · Score: 1

      That is one of the few mistakes our founders made.

      Another was to assume that subsequent political leaders would have the same personal integrity as they did and would strive to uphold the basic principles of the Constitution.

      The Constitution was being ignored almost before the ink was dry on the Bill of Rights with even Jefferson prosecuting people with laws that he thought unconstitutional. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    16. Re:Constitutional Court by dryeo · · Score: 1

      In Canada sometimes the government will ask the Supreme Court for an opinion on the Constitutionality of a law before it gets signed. Much better then passing laws of questionable constitutionality and letting people suffer until it works its way up the chain of appeals courts.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    17. Re:Constitutional Court by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid this is not true. An appellate court, presented with a singular case, can make a wrong decision. That means appealing to the Supreme Court, especially ofr issues of constitutional law or refinement of previous Supreme Court precedents which are being misapplied.

    18. Re:Constitutional Court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The U.S. SCOTUS can't do that. The constitution demands it be a case or controversy. That's t means no speculative opinions. Muskrat.

    19. Re:Constitutional Court by Uberbah · · Score: 0

      That's like asking for evidence that water is wet, when the top three wingers on the court (Roberts, Alito and Thomas) have never ruled against a corporation in favor of the citizen, or for the citizen and against George W. Obama on matters of "national security". And Scalia is almost as bad. Throw in Kennedy or one of the rotating sellouts (Soto/Kagan/Ginsburg) and it's an easy 5-4 majority every time.

    20. Re:Constitutional Court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems like the US needs a Constitutional Court who rule on nothing else but constitutional matters, and cannot decline.

      No we don't. We have one, it's called FISA, they never decline, and they always rule whatever the current administration is doing as "constitutional."

    21. Re:Constitutional Court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The process works as a vetting and refining system.

      No, often it doesn't. That's why there are wholly unconstitutional laws on the books that have been through the process all the way to the SCOTUS, where they were simply rubber stamped, or perhaps not so simply, held up with the most sophist, ridiculous reasoning one could imagine. Even when the decision goes the right way (rarely), reading some of the reasoning is a guarantee of forehead-slapping -- even tears if you really care for our country. Now we're stuck with the abominations of bad law, as "the process" makes it very hard to get something that's been to the SCOTUS reviewed again, and with the court as corrupt as it is, what's the point anyway? We are so fucked.

      All that's left is to keep your head down and avoid the justice system like the plague it has become. Once you are in the gears, you are well and truly out of luck, and the only option remaining is apply money wide and fast, presuming you're one of the lucky few that has enough to do so.

    22. Re:Constitutional Court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck getting a constitutional amendment

      FTFY

    23. Re:Constitutional Court by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      Can they not ask some legal scholars for opinion rather than the Supreme Court? It seems weird to ask a court if something is legal or not before you do it. You ask a lawyer.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    24. Re:Constitutional Court by mrbester · · Score: 1

      Then they'd be asking themselves and marking their own homework. Isn't Obama a lawyer who specialised in the Constitution? That's worked out well.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    25. Re:Constitutional Court by dryeo · · Score: 1

      The Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of what is constitutional so who better to give an opinion? The alternative is to pass the law, people get charged, go to court with all the hassles, perhaps get convicted and go to jail, eventually someone can afford the legal costs of multiple appeals until the law is thrown out, perhaps by a Provincial Supreme Court or Court of Appeals with the Supreme Court declining to hear the case or perhaps by the Supreme Court itself.
      There are also issues of Federal vs Provincial jurisdiction, better to resolve the issue early then late. The court does not have to give an opinion such as when asked whether same sex marriages were constitutionally necessary. As the government had already announced that they were legalizing it, the courts opinion didn't matter so they didn't waste time on it.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    26. Re:Constitutional Court by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      I think you're asking the wrong question. Why wouldn't you use the Supreme Court? They're the body that's ultimately in charge of deciding whether it's constitutional or not. What's bizarre is choosing to use a third-party lawyer arbitrarily. Just so that you can say you didn't use the Supreme Court?

      The US has determined the their constitution forbids federal courts from issuing advisory opinions. Some states do the same as Canada though with their state supreme courts.

    27. Re:Constitutional Court by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      They only declined to expedite the case by having it skip the normal appeals process; they did not decline to hear it at all. And, as the case now stands, a decline to hear or reverse the lower court means that the NSA loses as that is what the lower court decided.

      You see, sometimes declining to hear is just a way of saying the outcome is so obvious and the lower courts already got it right so stop wasting our time.

    28. Re:Constitutional Court by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      Very telling about how much actual knowledge one needs to be a college professor, isn't it?

    29. Re:Constitutional Court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only are they a court purchased by corporate interests, they are intellectually weak and the lack any courage to do the right thing.

      You make some interesting assertions but you provide no evidence or even arguments to support your claims. Not sure how you got a +5 insughtful.

      How about this?

    30. Re:Constitutional Court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whats the difference? SCOTUS is obviously either paid or threatened to uphold whatever is convenient for the Federal government and sold us out long, long ago.
      Dont believe it? Pull your head out of your ass and look around.

    31. Re:Constitutional Court by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Well, thats the rumour/excuse anyway...

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    32. Re:Constitutional Court by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      Seems like the US needs a Constitutional Court who rule on nothing else but constitutional matters, and cannot decline.

      And confiscate the rubber stamp of any judge appointed to it.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    33. Re:Constitutional Court by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      They wanted to be intellectually strong, but their corporate masters said no.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    34. Re:Constitutional Court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Thomas dissented in Kelo v. City of New London.

    35. Re:Constitutional Court by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      I would rather that they take it straight to the Supreme Court and settle the issue rather than dragging it out for another 4 years through appeals.

      That way, I know right away whether anyone on the Supreme Court actually gives a shit about the Constitution.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    36. Re:Constitutional Court by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure. How many cases end in capitulation due to lack of funds?

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    37. Re:Constitutional Court by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      +1 notable exception. Got another one, or was Kelo the only fish in the barrel?

    38. Re:Constitutional Court by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      There's actually a specific legal provision for that. Canadian governments can ask Courts for "Advisory opinions" on whether a particular law is Constitutional. These cases are also called "reference questions."

      Since we invented Judicial Review basically by accident (the Founders were convinced the natural give-and-take of government would keep everyone Constitutional, and therefore didn't include any Constitutional provisions for dealing with what happens when somebody says the Constitution was violated), there is no text authorizing anyone in the Federal government to ask for Advisory Opinions.

      What does exist is text banning the Courts from hearing a case where there's no controversy. So I can't sue you because you plan to do me harm, I have to wait until the harm is done. In legal terms I have no standing to sue until I've started losing money. In Constitutional questions you can only have Standing if you're harmed (or are about to be irreparably harmed, it's very rare but the Courts occasionally ignore standing rules if the case is really clear). But even with that there's no way for Obama to ask Chief Justice Roberts whether her new Healthcare Law will pass his Constitutional tests because Obama is clearly not gonna be harmed by a law he helped pass.

      This is what happens when you write a revolutionary legal document in 1789 and then only update it when you realize that slavery sucks, women should vote, etc.

    39. Re:Constitutional Court by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      In most countries there's a method the government can use to find out if a proposal it wants to enact is Constitutional before it gets passed. In many countries there's actually a specific Court, completely separate from the regular Court system. In others they just ask the Supreme Court. The Canadians have been doing this since 1875.

      This looks really weird to Americans, but OTOH it would have been really nice if instead of arguing for two years about whether ObamaCare was Constitutional Pelosi could just have sent a note to John Roberts.

      Asking legal scholars doesn't really help because legal scholars can disagree with each-other, and with the Supreme Court. Pelosi would have been told by almost all scholars it was perfectly fine, and the mandate was not a tax. But then the right-wing outrage machine got going and everyone was somewhat surprised Roberts ruled that it was Constitutional at all, and shocked that he ruled it was Constitutional precisely because the mandate was a tax.

    40. Re:Constitutional Court by dryeo · · Score: 1

      In most countries there's a method the government can use to find out if a proposal it wants to enact is Constitutional before it gets passed. In many countries there's actually a specific Court, completely separate from the regular Court system. In others they just ask the Supreme Court. The Canadians have been doing this since 1875.

      Not quite for Canada as up until 1949 ('33 for criminal cases) it was possible to appeal to the King (actually the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  2. Damages by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's another article I read today
    http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/03/27/obamas-nsa-reform-package-may-hamstring-privacy-lawsuits

    Conservative legal activist Larry Klayman, unlike other challengers, seeks damages from Verizon and U.S. officials â" which may keep his two cases alive, experts say. Cases brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., do not seek damages.

    The request for past damages means that his lawsuit can't be mooted by legislative changes.
    All the other lawsuits are only asking for injuctions, and Congress can make them go away.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:Damages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if they are challenging the constitutionality of the law? How can congress make it go away without getting a constitutional amendment ratified? Or are the EFF and ACLU lawsuits not based on the 4th amendment, and if that's the case, why not?

    2. Re:Damages by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "How can congress make it go away without getting a constitutional amendment ratified?"

      By repealing the law authorizing the activity claimed to be unconstitutional. STOPPING unconstitutional activity does not require a constitutional amendment.

      At that point any further action on the injunction is moot, since the law would then match what the injunction is asking for.

  3. Need to follow the proper approach by turp182 · · Score: 1

    Someone needs to bring a suit through the lower Federal courts and the appellate level. That's how to have a chance of getting a Supreme Court review.

    I know very little with regards to this stuff, only that the Supreme Court rarely hears cases directly (the Bush Jr./Gore election was one time that I know of).

    --
    BlameBillCosby.com
    1. Re:Need to follow the proper approach by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 1

      If you read the summary in the /. post that you commented on, you would have seen that someone did bring the suit before a lower court. The lower court ruled that the practice was unconstitutional, but stayed their judgement on appeal as they knew it would be appealed. That being said, usually when the Supreme Court denies hearing a case, it means that the last ruling was the correct ruling. However, in this case, the plaintiffs simply need to appeal to the full appellate court.

      --
      We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
    2. Re:Need to follow the proper approach by turp182 · · Score: 1

      Read the summary! What is this? Slashdot?

      I gleaned over the summary, noticing the lack of a full appeal. That's what was missing in my opinion (IANAL opinion, call it one cent...) and the only thing I wanted to raise attention to.

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    3. Re:Need to follow the proper approach by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      A few different groups tried that with very skilled lawyers and had some success.
      http://www.freedomwatchusa.org...
      The problem now is a new legal limbo - you can have all the Fourth Amendment you want but NSA color of law efforts have ensured your US domestic/international network use fair game.
      Your legal protections cannot be weakened, removed and still stand but the NSA seems to have ensured no timely legal remedy from a vast long term illegal domestic surveillance network.
      Many people saw a vast illegal domestic surveillance network forming as a US digital Berlin Wall and hoped they would end up the west with court rulings.
      With US legal indifference to an illegal domestic surveillance network and no firm legal support on the Fourth Amendment: welcome to the new legal selective, color of law side of US history.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  4. Go back & get the stay lifted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ya want to see some action here? The plaintiffs should go back to judge Leon asking him to lift his stay. Since the Supreme's clearly don't view this as some kind of 'crisis' situation that needed their attention it is therefore logical that it isn't important enough to require a stay of the original ruling. If Leon lifted his stay the defendants would be appealing & moving the case forward far faster than the plaintiffs would.

    1. Re:Go back & get the stay lifted by Frobnicator · · Score: 5, Informative

      That is what the judge wrote in his order. The court order makes for some intense reading compared to most rulings.

      The last paragraph in his order is about as strict as he could word it: I hereby give the Government fair notice that should my ruling be upheld, this order will go into effect forthwith. Accordingly, I fully expect that during the appellate process, which will consume at least the next six months, the Government will take whatever steps necessary to comply with this order when, and if, it is upheld. Suffice it to say, requesting further time to comply with this order months from now will not be well received and could result in collateral sanctions. /Signed/ RICHARD J. LEON, United States District Judge.

      If he removed the stay he would need to allow the government time to implement the changes. This way the clock is already ticking.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
  5. Taxes? by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

    Since the 4th is out the window, they cannot have the 16th without violating the 13th. Then again it has to be taken as a whole or the contract of the 'governed' is void.

    1. Re:Taxes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You ain't a lawyer, is ya?

    2. Re:Taxes? by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

      Nope. But it is pretty clear that servitude is not voluntary here.

  6. Utterly gutless by bazmail · · Score: 0

    I guess we now know for sure who holds the real power in the US now that the supreme court judges are too cowardly to do their god damned jobs. Are they too busy hearing other cases? What case could be more pressing that allegations of illegal mass surveillance? 300 million victims, and some cowards in robes.

    1. Re:Utterly gutless by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They just need more time for their corporate puppetmasters to tell them what to do.. that's all.

    2. Re:Utterly gutless by HBI · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or maybe they think that a decision isn't required and the lower courts can solve this. Generally, this would mean either the issue isn't important enough for them, the matter is settled law or the issue has been insufficiently litigated at a lower level. We can rule out the first two. Doesn't mean they won't come back for a bite at it if it is not resolved.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    3. Re:Utterly gutless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >300 million victims

      More like 3000 million victims...

    4. Re:Utterly gutless by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      No they're just delayed with having new rubber stamps made.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    5. Re:Utterly gutless by NoKaOi · · Score: 1

      They just need more time for their corporate puppetmasters to tell them what to do.. that's all.

      No, they are doing exactly what their puppet masters want them to do. If they heard the case then they'd have to rule and something might change, not to mention they'd have a really hard time writing an opinion that says the surveillance in question doesn't violate the constitution. Refusing to hear the case means that the status quo is maintained for a while longer.

    6. Re:Utterly gutless by NoKaOi · · Score: 1, Insightful

      FTA:

      That's because the Supreme Court has taken cases before they went to the federal appellate level. Those disputes, which seemingly pale in comparison to the NSA surveillance at issue, involved the constitutionality of the US Sentencing Commission, the value of a floundering railroad, a coal strike, and the eviction of an Ohio tenant from a housing rental.

      So pretty much, they say they take things that seem to have an immediacy. The thing is, not only does this affect everyone with a phone or Internet access, but it is affecting all of us right now. This is not a question over whether or not what the NSA was doing in the past violated the constitution, but that what they are doing right now violates the constitution. Thus providing an example that what they choose to allow to bypass the lower courts has nothing to do with importance, immediacy, or public interest, and everything to do with politics.

    7. Re:Utterly gutless by Lodlaiden · · Score: 1

      Most insightful/informative post I've seen all week.

      --
      Suborbital [spaceflight] is the special olympics of spaceflight. - Rei
    8. Re:Utterly gutless by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      This is not a question over whether or not what the NSA was doing in the past violated the constitution, but that what they are doing right now violates the constitution.

      The question is whether or not there is a reason that a final ruling has to be given right now.

      How is what the NSA is doing affecting you right now, such that they have to stop immediately? How will a, say, 1 year delay affect you? During that year, are you likely to be deprived of your life? Liberty? A large amount of money?

      No? Then it's probably worthwhile to let the system work the way it was intended.

    9. Re:Utterly gutless by lonOtter · · Score: 2

      How is what the NSA is doing affecting you right now, such that they have to stop immediately?

      They're responsible for egregiously violating nearly everyone's rights and the highest law of the land, something that they continue to make worse with each passing day. I can think of nothing more in need of a quick response.

      You'd agree, if you cared at all about fundamental liberties.

      --
      [End Of Line]
    10. Re:Utterly gutless by HBI · · Score: 1

      You're just impatient and young.

      Truth. Much worse things have happened than NSA spying. Breaking the US system of laws to solve this one problem is stupid and shortsighted.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    11. Re:Utterly gutless by lonOtter · · Score: 1

      You're just impatient and young.

      Assumptions completely without merit.

      Truth. Much worse things have happened than NSA spying.

      Just because X is worse than Y doesn't mean Y isn't bad.

      Breaking the US system of laws to solve this one problem is stupid and shortsighted.

      As the poster above has shown, solving this problem wouldn't break a damn thing, as the court has been known to make exceptions.

      This should be an exception, because this sort of thing violates nearly everyone's fundamental liberties, and the constitution itself.

      --
      [End Of Line]
    12. Re:Utterly gutless by lonOtter · · Score: 1

      As for being impatient... I take it that that means you do not care that the NSA is violating nearly everyone's fundamental liberties and the constitution each and every day? If anyone isn't "impatient" about solving this problem, they're damn fools.

      --
      [End Of Line]
    13. Re:Utterly gutless by HBI · · Score: 1

      So a totalitarian outcome would be just fine, as long as the NSA stops spying?

      Now you're just being an idiot.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    14. Re:Utterly gutless by lonOtter · · Score: 1

      What totalitarian outcome? What the hell are you talking about?

      --
      [End Of Line]
  7. Time to shoot theses elderly fucks in the head by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and get a court that will do it's job.

    1. Re:Time to shoot theses elderly fucks in the head by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 0, Troll

      Scalia should be impeached for prejudging cases.

      Thomas should be impeached for open and obvious conflict of interests.

      Roberts is an idiot, but I am not sure he's technically done anything wrong. And I read today that Kennedy had roots in the lobbyist industry.

    2. Re:Time to shoot theses elderly fucks in the head by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Love to hear your opinion on the rest of the idiots. Considering if it were just those three, they could of chosen to hear this case I believe. So what's your damnable excuse for the other 5 besides petty partisan politics.

      If you're still thinking that only the Democrats or only the Republicans are the problem, please realize YOU are the problem.

      They're one and the same...

    3. Re:Time to shoot theses elderly fucks in the head by kwbauer · · Score: 2

      And yet they are 3 of the 5 that realized that Chris Matthews* is actually an employee of a corporation and that there is no actual way to distinguish his employer from a documentary film maker so they chose to allow Chris Matthews to continue to be employed by a corporation to do what he does and to let the documentary film maker also continue. However, you and Chris Matthews would be happier if all 9 had agreed that being employed by a corporation meant making no more politically oriented speech so that Chris Matthews would be unemployed.

      *Please substitute your favorite reporter/media personality whatever that makes a living by being "the media."

  8. sys.us.judicial.fairness.accountability=0 by c4t3l · · Score: 1

    The United States Government is in breach of contract with its citizens. Where's the effin accountability?!!

  9. This works likes Tennis at US Open I think by Bob_Who · · Score: 1

    You whack the ball back and forth over the net, but you gotta win by two: Advantage, Deuce, Advantage Deuce, Game,. Set, Tie Breaker, Match. Its both the rules of the game and the game of the rules at the very same time. So its not, not just a game. Its not not the law.

    1. Re:This works likes Tennis at US Open I think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You whack the ball back and forth over the net, but you gotta win by two: Advantage, Deuce, Advantage Deuce, Game,. Set, Tie Breaker, Match.

      Its both the rules of the game and the game of the rules at the very same time.

      So its not, not just a game. Its not not the law.

      Actually, it reads more like doublespeak and smells like bullshit.

      In other words, Politics 101.

      Not to go all 1776 and get old-fashioned here, but just take a look at this opening line:

      "the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule on the constitutionality..."

      Yeah, let's just stop right there and ask our founding fathers what they think about this pathetic excuse to bow out of something this important to create even more of a bureaucratic mess.

  10. Expiration invalid. by meerling · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The provision allowing the bulk collection, Section 215 of the Patriot Act, expires June 1, 2015."
    Yeah, right. They'll extend it indefinitely, it will never 'expire'. (Just like all the the other things that were supposed to 'expire'.)

  11. Let's nuke the white house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time for the new revolution!

    1. Re:Let's nuke the white house by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

      Nah, just repaint with Halloween theme because they seem to like scare the kiddies so much on a fear driven economy. Nip it in the bud, burn the money.

  12. Constitutional Court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, they didn't make that mistake. Article III of the constitution says nothing about this one way or the other. The Supreme Court decides its own procedures for reviewing cases. In this case they're not ignoring the case, merely saying that it must still go to the appeals court first, which is the normal procedure. I agree, however, that there should be some procedure in which another branch of government (legislature, executive, or a combination) could force the Supreme Court to consider an important case now, rather than later. Good luck getting a constitutional amendment that allows that.

  13. Seems reasonable by BenSchuarmer · · Score: 0

    why would search without a warrant be unconstitutional?

    1. Re:Seems reasonable by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Go read the 4th Amendment please.

      U.S. CONSTITUTION : AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION : ARTICLE IV

      *"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."

    2. Re:Seems reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When it's not "unreasonable." The 4th amendment is very specific about that requirement.

    3. Re:Seems reasonable by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      The 4th also defines reasonable: "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"

      It doesn't fucking mean that "if you think it's ok, hey, IT'S OK!"

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  14. Please NOTE... by PortHaven · · Score: 0

    Damages in court speak means $$$...

    so damn your rights, if you haven't lost the almighty dollar....

    and this my dear gun control advocates, is why we need our friggin guns...NOT for hunting. Because when it goes beyond data collection to people collection, we need means beyond a court that enable us to VETO.

    And if you say it will never come to that, please let me point out that you 1D10T5 erred when you said it would never come to universal surveillance either.

    1. Re:Please NOTE... by Cryacin · · Score: 1

      You have guns, they have tanks. Enjoy.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    2. Re:Please NOTE... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a fucking dunce. The Vietcong, Iraqi and Afghani insurgents didn't have tanks and they killed a combined tens of thousands of US soldiers. Enjoy your shallow grave coward.

    3. Re:Please NOTE... by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      There are around 300 million firearms in the United States. The US military has under 8000 armored vehicles that could even remotely considered "tanks"

      If the people of the united states rose up against their government, it would be no contest. The military would lose very quickly. This is the point of the Right to bare arms. There can be no military coup in this country while the populace is so armed.

    4. Re:Please NOTE... by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Can ANY of those 300 million firearms disable ONE of those "tanks".

      Maybe if they all fired at the same time.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    5. Re:Please NOTE... by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      Check out the roguesci lab sometimes..I'm not going to elaborate.

    6. Re:Please NOTE... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Armed infantry. or guerrillas, can destroy the fuel supplies, supply lines, and the personnel who reload and refuel the tanks. Tanks require far, far more fuel, maintenance, and much larger ammunition depots than ground troops. Basically, if you can engage in effective guerrilla warfare, you can defeat an artillery based army. Take a good look at the history of invasions of Russia and Afghanistan for particularly effective ground forces versus armor historical combats.

    7. Re:Please NOTE... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Don't be daft. 1/3rd will rise up, 1/3rd will take the side of government and 1/3rd will be indifferent, any other split would see elections being able to solve things. End result will be something like Democrats vs Republicans, red states vs blue states or rich vs poor. Just look at the tea party and the occupy movements, both demonized by the press, government and in public opinion. Or look at the history of the USA, Washington used the Army to put down the Whiskey rebellion successfully, Lincoln used the army to force the south back into the Union successfully. In both cases the army didn't even have much of an advantage when it came to arms.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    8. Re:Please NOTE... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Thats the question, with todays computerized lists, decades of state and federal informants, interconnected fusion centres and war hardened troops all that you need is flimsy legality of local door to door searches.
      A knock on the door to surrender all now listed 'illegal' hardware. A truck waiting for a drive to a local reeducation camp would be quick solution for many.
      Any people not understanding the lawful request to comply would be re interviewed and their complex views taken into consideration by teams with different skills.
      At a later time flat empty blocks of land will become available at affordable prices for redevelopment with local tax breaks.
      The past owners having moved away during difficult economic times a few years ago...

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    9. Re:Please NOTE... by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "so damn your rights"

      The EFF, ACLU, and Rand Paul asked for an injunction, and they got it.

    10. Re:Please NOTE... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Enjoy your predator drones flown by an enemy that doesn't give a shit about holding territitory as long as it can kill your ass any time of the day or night, 'O clutcher of Tiger Stones.

    11. Re:Please NOTE... by will_die · · Score: 1

      Considering how good Molotov cocktail worked on WW 2 tanks would be interesting to see how they do on a modern tank. So if anyone wants to try please do it on an un maned tank and you tube it.

    12. Re:Please NOTE... by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      There are around 300 million firearms in the United States.

      Of which, only about what 1000 can be expected to rise up in rebellion, and be summarily put down.

      But by all means, keep serving the myth that america is more free because small arms are widely available. By believing this myth you support the continued reign of the oligarchs and their attempts to suppress the rule of the people. After all, why do the hard work of protesting when you can just claim that your freedom is upheld by guns you will never use? Continue to comfort yourself with the lie.

    13. Re:Please NOTE... by will_die · · Score: 1

      Not a full blown tank but an armored vehicle http://elitedaily.com/news/wor...

    14. Re:Please NOTE... by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Tanks have come a long freaking way since WW2.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

      The only Challenger 2 destroyed was by another Challenger 2 tank.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    15. Re:Please NOTE... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Yes, ....

      See Vietname, Afghanistan, and Iraq for example of victory. Tanks are useful for attacking and over-running. But to maintain control, usuallty devolves to rifles.

    16. Re:Please NOTE... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      You don't think American's hobbyists could take down a Predator drone?

      And well, sure, the drones reduces the lives we've lost in the combat zones. But they've done very little to achieve victory or control.

    17. Re:Please NOTE... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Some can disable the lighter ones. But usually IEDs are used to take out armored vehicles.

      Other considerations, you have to believe no American soldiers being forced to fire on Americans will defect with their own tanks. Many tanks will be stolen when tanker stop to piss.

    18. Re:Please NOTE... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Wait....

      You're telling me that NSA has stopped it's monitoring? This is news to me.

    19. Re:Please NOTE... by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      In one encounter within the urban area a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The driver's sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by fourteen rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile.[15] The crew survived remaining safe within the tank until the tank was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later after repairs. One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident.

      Damn...

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    20. Re:Please NOTE... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have apparently never heard what the Ethopians did to the Italians during WWII. Look it up. While you are looking that up, also look up tank traps. Anyone with a shovel and some proper groundcover can take out a tank.

    21. Re:Please NOTE... by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      Let me fix that real quick:

      > predator drones paid for by your money, assembled and directed by Joe Schmoe and Jane Doe

      Don't give up because your left arm can't wrestle down your right arm; rather try to stop hitting yourself with your right arm and the issue becomes moot.

    22. Re:Please NOTE... by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      You apparently haven't heard that tanks have improved since WW2.

      Go look up the UK Challenger 2.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    23. Re:Please NOTE... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      A drone? What about any significant numbers of a fleet of drones? What are the hobbyist chances of taking down a spy satellite?

    24. Re:Please NOTE... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      Gun nuts annoy me for two reasons.

      1) They are convinced their firearms scare the Army. The Army does not give two shits about you, all your buddies, and your AR-15s combined. It does not matter how many after-market parts you added. Since WW1 the Army has fought no wars where enemies armed with firearms caused most casualties. Hippy-artist-types scare the shit out of the Army because they can design creative booby-traps, and creative booby-traps were the VC's bread and butter. Iraqi and Afghani insurgents, too. There's a reason IEDs are called "improvised."

      2) Historically firearms have never stopped the Federal Government from opressing Americans. This is largely because in America the Feds do not oppress US Citizens. What tends to happen is US Citizens oppress each-other, and then whine to high heaven about Abe Lincoln being a tyrant when he frees half the state.

      Later on the Posse Comitatus Act allowed ordinary gun-owning Americans south of the Mason-Dixon line to ethnically cleanse their states of pesky black near- majorities (or actual majorities in the cases of South Carolina and Mississippi), impose Jim Crow, etc.

    25. Re:Please NOTE... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      You don't think American's hobbyists could take down a Predator drone?

      With what?

      They're big planes with multiple redundancies so firearms probably won't punch a big enough hole to take the damn things down. There's a reason it's news when the Taliban/Iran/whomever takes one out with firearms. Rockets could work, but launching them within the borders of the US would be dumb because rocket fire is incredibly easy to back trace. They'll know exactly where to send the SWAT team two seconds after you fire the rocket.

      Using electronic means is probably dumb because electronic signals can be tracked. You can get a drone or two, but eventually they're gonna track your ass just like they tracked MH370.

    26. Re:Please NOTE... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      There are around 300 million firearms in the United States. The US military has under 8000 armored vehicles that could even remotely considered "tanks"

      If the people of the united states rose up against their government, it would be no contest. The military would lose very quickly. This is the point of the Right to bare arms. There can be no military coup in this country while the populace is so armed.

      This is the Founders' logic. The thing they didn't understand is that in the US all these assholes are responsible to the people anyway.

      If all 300 million Americans actually want Obama to stop the metadata collection then all they have to do is send him a Congress that says "fuck Metadata collection." We can do this in November. Two years from now we get to replace Obama. Hell in practical terms we could do this tomorrow simply by refusing to go to work until Obama resigns. General Strikes c an be quite effective in changing political policies if everybody actually stays home. And nobody has to die. If we do the military option the Military is gonna kill a few hundred of us before we win.

      The math works the same with pretty much any assembly of American people above 66 million, because it's no American election has had more then 132 million votes. The reason we still have things like Metadata collection isn't that the system is unchangeable, it's that our fellow Americans are too fixated on supporting the team which will vote their way on taxes/ObamaCare/etc. to risk letting the other team control the government. And if you're not willing to risk Paul Ryan's budget passing/failing to get rid of Metadata then you'd be a fool to offer to shoot the Army for it.

      The military option only makes sense if you've got a much smaller (in the 30 million range) section of the country. But they have to be incredibly committed, and they also have to be so unpopular that neither big party is willing to let them in it's tent.

      No offense, but the idea that 30 million Americans could seize the government by military force, against the will of the other 280 million, terrifies me.

    27. Re:Please NOTE... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      Armed infantry. or guerrillas, can destroy the fuel supplies, supply lines, and the personnel who reload and refuel the tanks. Tanks require far, far more fuel, maintenance, and much larger ammunition depots than ground troops. Basically, if you can engage in effective guerrilla warfare, you can defeat an artillery based army. Take a good look at the history of invasions of Russia and Afghanistan for particularly effective ground forces versus armor historical combats.

      But it's not the guns that do it. It's explosives and booby traps. Mostly explosive booby traps. And it's definitely not legal guns that can do it.

      Which means that even if the Second Amendment was repealed today, and all legal guns disappeared, the odds of a successful rebellion in the US would not decrease.

    28. Re:Please NOTE... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      Modern tanks are designed so those don't work. The biggest thing is they almost all use diesel fuel, and diesel fuel simply does not burn. This protects most US Army vehicles, and others (like the M1 Abrams) are designed so that a Molotov can't blow up their gasoline.

      The armor on the Abrams is particularly effective. You'd think we'd lose dozens in two wars over a decade, but we've only lost a handful.

      Now you can clearly majorly fuck up a tank with booby traps, but not a Molotov cocktail, and you probably need Milspec something for the explosive. You're probably best off targeting the supply trucks that keep the tank's parent unit going.

    29. Re:Please NOTE... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Guns help. It's much easier to _detonate_ a fuel supply with a firearm.

    30. Re:Please NOTE... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      Check out the Mythbusters numerous attempts to get fuel to blow up with bullets. It almost never works. When it does work instead of *boom* they get a fire. To get gasoline to explode you need a very specific fuel-air mixture, which is very difficult to get by accident. It's even harder to get it in military fuel tanks because the military isn;t gonna design fuel tanks that blow up.

      If you want to stop a tank division dead in it's tracks by attacking the supply trucks guns aren't the best option. Some sort of land-mine is a much better. Highly illegal firearms like Rocket Propelled Grenades will also do the trick. The Iraqis and Taliban aren't stupid, they have firearms much more lethal then are available to America's Second Amendment advocates (they generally have actual MilSpec Kalishnakovs liberated" from actual military units, the problem was so bad in Iraq that the US stopped the Iraqis from buying RPG-29s for their Army for fear the damn things would end up in insurgent hands), but their main weapons are RPGs and remotely detonated landmines.

    31. Re:Please NOTE... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      > Check out the Mythbusters numerous attempts to get fuel to blow up with bullets

      Very interesting. _Burning_ the fuel supply counts as destroying it. I still suspect it's easier to get bullets, and use them from a relatively safe distance, than to build and successfully deploy explosives near an ammo dump. I also agree that land mines and RPG's are more effective for direct attacks on armor.

      But the point I was making is that small arms, even household firearms permitted under various states' more regulated policies, can still have some effective use against armor.

    32. Re:Please NOTE... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      They only got fire with tracer rounds, which are really bad to use against a defended military position. If the other guy knows where you're shooting from you die.

      My point isn't that there are no tactical situations where a gun would be useful. After you rebel it illegally importing firearms is pretty much inevitable. Historically successful rebellions a long-ass time -- the VC started their rebellion in the 40s, and didn't fully succeed until Saigon fell in '75, our own Revolution took almost 8 years, etc.

      So the question isn't "would these weapons be useful?" It's "are these weapons so useful that having them for all 100% of the rebellion, rather then merely having them for 85%, increases the odds of success?"

      I'd say the answer is clearly no. They encourage your first wave to get itself killed in stupid shoot-outs, all of said first-wave is on multiple mailing lists in DC which would be trivial for the Army to get it's hands on (you seriously think the NRA can keep your name from a new Gestapo?), the weapons aren't useful for suppressive fire because they don't have a full-auto mode (altho it is fairly simple to add that in), without explosives and rockets (which you have to build yourself, because they're illegal even under the Second Amendment) they can't actually do damage to anybody, and by the time you have rockets built you could have a machine-shop churning out AKs, etc.

  15. SOLUTION by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    We the citizens make a warrantless search of the White House and the Capitol building....

  16. just in time for kodos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just in time for kodos to take his turn

  17. He he he by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The land of freedom, he he he. What a joke.

    1. Re:He he he by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

      I don't think anyone here is laughing, but I believe there is a growing fear that we may not find our way out of the darkness before the bottom falls out of the dollar.

  18. Re:Obama's a lame duck by Kuroji · · Score: 3, Informative

    Be afraid. Be very afraid.

  19. Just like almost everything else in the US gov... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not only are they a court purchased by corporate interests, they are intellectually weak and the lack any courage to do the right thing.

    The SCOTUS functions just like all their compatriots in other departments of the United States government.

    They have been bought over, that's all.

    So far, the end for the "Land of Liberty, Home of the Brave" has already arrived.

  20. Football analogy by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

    Punt.

  21. How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone deglove the tools on the supCt. There needs to be some new blood before the corpratists take control.

  22. Obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For almost a decade I held and was granted access to above TOP SECRET RUFF information within the USA DoD.

    My postal mail, and telephone were regularly accessed as well as all my bank accounts, and securities accounts. Every
    financial aspect of my life of on record and "Fuckable" by FBI, IRS and many agencies of the DoD. They did not "Fuck" me !

    This was well before the "internet."

    Consider this, "I am sitting at a Cafe, I overhear a conservation at a near table, the conservation mentions words of "Kill
    the President" "Butt Fuck the President" and "Lets cut off the Penis of the President and make him eat his Penis."

    Should I be killed by agents of FBI, IRS, DoI ?

    Fuck You !

  23. Could you BE any more clueless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No? Then it's probably worthwhile to let the system work the way it was intended.

    Sure, sure. If he's not affected, it's all good, right? Because the people that are being affected right now can just go fuck off and die in a fire. Particularly if they don't have the money to fight, but in this case, just in general, too. Good thinking there, Sparky. You're a credit to the system: biased, stupid, and lacking either compassion or anything that could remotely be called patriotism.

    1. Re:Could you BE any more clueless? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      First they came for the Socialists...

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  24. Marbury v Madison by cpm99352 · · Score: 1

    Marbury v Madison was pulled out of the air from the Constitution to define the Judicial branch's power.

    So, what is the use of the Supreme Court these days? Certainly Roberts is no Marshall, instead he seems a throwback the original ineffectiveness of the Court.

    Just as the Court was extremely courageous in deciding Korematsu only once the war was over, the Supremes appear to wish to sit this one out.

    I'd love to hear O'Conners', Thomas', and Scalia's opinions of this milque toast decision.

    1. Re:Marbury v Madison by sexybomber · · Score: 1

      Sandra Day O'Connor hasn't been on the Supreme Court for eight years now. That glorified shitstain Sam Alito replaced her. While it would certainly be interesting to hear her opinion of the case, such opinion would carry no weight whatsoever.

  25. EU Supreme Court ruling concerning data retention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EU Supreme Court ruling concerning data retention today (08 Apr 2014):
    http://heise.de/-2165604 (in German)
    Will most likely be on
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/europe/roundup
    soon
    In short: Data retention may be feasible in the EU, but current EU law is illegitimate (violates EU citizen's privacy).

  26. Re:Obama's a lame duck by Catbeller · · Score: 2

    A President will be allowed to increase the power of the loose confederacy of those really in charge. Never to decrease. You think Presidents run the US? They're just executives, not kings.

  27. We do both... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    We protest, we call our selected officials, and we maintain the final veto.

    1. Re:We do both... by KeensMustard · · Score: 1
      You aren't doing any of those things.

      In many other democracies, similar provocations from the government would have the people out on the street in mass protest. Why is this not happening in the US? I think the problem is people who lay claim to some violent overthrow of the government. Perhaps they do it inadvertently, perhaps encouraging compliance with the regime is intentional. But whatever the motivation:

      (a) Claiming that legal access to small arms makes the US somehow exceptional as a democracy and strengthens the democratic process is nonsense. If the need for violent overthrow comes to pass, the legality of your gun is not really a headline issue.

      (b) Most people, including most americans, aren't going to side with violent revolution unless the situation becomes dire. When faced with joining a violent revolution and killing their friends, the children of their friends, destroying the economy, promoting the interests of violent radicals, they will judge that a slightly less democratic government is a favorable option. And fair enough. So the group who constantly advocate for violent revolution ignore the fact that power is removed from the people by increments, not all at once. By constantly laying claim to some non-democratic means of restoring democracy, they dissipate the anger needed to get people on their feet to act.

  28. Re:You can't pass an unconstitutional law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    -1? Seriously? This guy's post is dead on.

    All of the people he listed have committed treason, and he's right, there's only one punishment for treason when are troops are seeing combat.

  29. Re:You want those 5 Know-nothings to rule on this? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    Is there anything you DIDN'T get utterly wrong?

    Here you go. Wipe the froth off your lips and have a read.

  30. Not a big deal by smutt · · Score: 1

    This doesn't really mean anything, and it would be surprising if SCOTUS actually did hear it now. The supreme court just basically said this needs to work its way through the normal appeals process. This might actually be better, since if you want to set a good and lasting precedent you should follow EVERY procedure in the most precedential way. Don't read too much into this decision.

    --
    The Information Revolution will be fought on the command line.
  31. Which cases are heard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who decides which cases are heard? It's not necessarily bad if a case isn't heard, if you believe that the opposition will win. Not hearing the case opens the door for a future SCOTUS to rule differently.

  32. Hey bigmouth bullshit artist... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See you here http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... you bigmouthed little nobody...

    APK

    P.S.=> Have the balls to show up there in the link above to reply to it (& NOT days later like you did, LONG after I left that thread!)

    NOW, in the link above, I simply tore you apart in it vs. your "so-called 'points'" that you "amended" bogusly, changing your parameters/constraints there!

    (& I am going to rip you a new asshole there YET AGAIN, publicly, for your BIG mouth you little shit - prepare to be utterly humiliated, publicly...)

    ... apk