Slashdot Mirror
The 5 Cases That Could Pit the Supreme Court Against the NSA
An anonymous reader writes: We've all been wondering how the U.S. Judicial branch will deal with the NSA's bulk metadata surveillance. Getting a case to the Supreme Court isn't a quick process, so we haven't seen much movement yet. But later this year, several cases have the potential to force a Supreme Court ruling on the NSA, whether they like it or not. Ars summarizes the five likeliest cases, and provides estimates on their timelines. For example, Klayman v. Obama was one of the first lawsuits filed after the Snowden leaks were published. The first judge to hear it actually ordered the government to halt the metadata program and destroy all data, but stayed his own order pending appeal. The case is now awaiting a decision from the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, and several other high-profile lawsuits are awaiting its outcome. The decision in Klayman will have a domino effect on NSA-related court battles across the country.
would-a, and all that.
As an American of course I wish that the SCOTUS would honor the very spirit that makes the USA special - in which, the government should never have given any power to intrude on the citizens' rights
But then, as a person who knows what the United States of America has turned into ... I ain't gonna be holding my breath
Them SCOTUS people are as corrupt as the rest --- and to think the NSA (and those powerful god-like beings who holds control over spook agencies such as NSA) don't already have influences over the SCOTUS judges is to deny the reality
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
"No standing, GTFO!" and "Corporations Good!"
The last decent institution of the US Govt has soured me the last 15 years.
Those are the only two words that matter. TPTB could wipe out entire US cities and not be touched if they only mention those two words.
Like that'll happen. They'll just rule in favor of God and Country, and the massive corporate control over freedom, so that all the citizens are put in their proper place.
I'd feel a lot better about this case if the plaintiff (Klayman) weren't proceeding pro se and actually had a lawyer who knew how to argue a case instead of using his pleadings as a political soap box.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
They actually get it into the supreme court. Prove that the US is run by corporate Nazi's and Roman Catholic driven first world government mob.
Unified response of the corporate run Nazi's and Roman Catholic driven first world government mob: What are ya going to do about it?
The people: "But Rome and Hitler fell and the same is happening here with the militarization of local governments driving them bankrupt and fleecing an already broke people?"
Unified response of the corporate run Nazi's and Roman Catholic driven first world government mob: "Everything is fine. We don't understand you. Don't you have some land in Montana?"
The US Supreme Court can choose to accept or reject any case assigned to it and, historically, tends to take a minimalist approach. These cases are of the sort that the court will accept, but it is unwise to assume that any decision will resolve root issues. Many are remanded to the appeals court for further review and many are decided on very narrow grounds.
A SCOTUS ruling can have very broad and sometimes unexpected impact and the court seems to follow the medical credo... "First, do no harm". Every judge is familiar with very questionable decisions of the past (e.g. Dred Scott). They would all prefer not to be remembered for another such decision.
Bush v Gore
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Citizens United
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Heien v North Carolina (you got to read this one)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And so on...
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
"Let them enforce it."
Supreme Court Ruling Allows Strip Searches for Any Arrest.
The percentage of the U.S. population in prison is higher than any other nation in the world.
Secret U.S. government agencies give very profitable secret contracts to what is called the Beltway Bandits. U.S. taxpayers pay, both in money and in the resulting inflation.
The Bush family makes money by getting taxpayers to pay for war: The Bush-Saudi Connection. There is an entire book about that: House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties.
...that the courts will decide in whatever way most benefits the Top 0.1% of America's wealthy.
The problem with the NSA is not that it is collecting massive amounts of metadata, capturing phone calls or intercepting Internet activity ... it's that ANYBODY KNOWS ABOUT IT!!!
Same with the FBI and CIA.
America used to have intelligence ... the "intel" kind.
Our secret service got no fucking street cred.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
I came here to post this. The Supreme Court has to grant a "writ of certiorari" before any cases from lower courts get heard by the Supreme Court. So it has the ability to simply ignore the vast majority of cases.
That said, there are a very few, rare types of cases where the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction according to the US Constitution and those it actually does have to deal with directly, as they're not heard by lesser courts to begin with (that's why it's "original" jurisdiction--because the cases start with whichever court has that). That said, those types of cases are pretty rare.
I believe all of these cases are appeals from lower courts, so the headline is bogus and the Supremes can't be "forced" to do anything. They can simply deny cert and ignore them if they wish to. They ignore most cases appealed to them.
That's funny. I pulled up my brother's custom dictionary one time - wow.
>. I'm of the opinion Bush was the worst thing that ever
> happened to this country, until Obama came along of course.
Worst presidents since 1980, anyway. We've had a lot of bad stuff happen - the depression, the civil war, etc. We've had some pretty crappy presidents in the last 200 years also, and those two were certainly crappy.
>> Your contention is that it was unconstitutionally unreasonable to make the traffic stop
> never said that.
The ruling was that it was NOT so unreasonable as to be a Constitutional violation. The court said it wasn't terribly unreasonable to make the stop because it was based on the officer's _reasonable_ understanding of the law (though the court later interpreted it differently). I thought you indicated that was a horrible ruling. I'm curious why you think so.
I can see why you might disagree somewhat with the ruling, but I don't see how anyone would choose it as a major example of a really bad ruling.
The ruling was that because the officer's understanding of the law was reasonable, a stop based on that understanding was reasonable. The law said "all originally installed lights" - that sounds like it includes brake lights. Reading "all originally installed lights", it is reasonable to stop someone whose originally installed lights aren't working, the court ruled.
So they can't "always claim they misunderstood the law", they can do so only if the their understanding of it is the reasonable interpretation of the wording of the law.
...the NSA will know the USSC ruling before they announce it.
-Styopa
"NSA holds no power..."
Consider what the initials NSA stand for:
No Sales for America.
Would you buy anything from the U.S. now that you know everything is being monitored with secret surveillance?
The NSA is an extremely secretive organization. That means NO ONE, including people in the NSA, has a full understanding of what the NSA does. If an employee makes a huge mistake that is very destructive to the U.S., do you think someone will deal sensibly with the mistake? No, probably not. The mistake may be buried, because having a job and being available for promotion is personally important.
Consider the full meaning of Edward Snowden's actions: Snowden didn't work for the NSA. He worked for a contractor to the NSA. Yet Snowden had FULL access to extremely private information, such as phone calls and emails about business negotiations. Suppose an NSA contractor employee heard a phone discussion that a company was having financial difficulties. What would keep that contractor from telling his brother to sell the company's stock short? Nothing, because there is no due process. It's all secret.
Secret organizations with secret policies are not likely to be managed well. That is especially true in a time when even organizations with public stockholders are sometimes poorly managed.
I am Sam. Uncle Sam I am.
That Uncle Sam, that Uncle Sam, I do not trust that Uncle Sam.
Do you like backbone voice/data taps and bulk retention?
I do not like them, Uncle Sam. They're just tools for blackmail, thugs and future despots. They am.
Would you like them here or there?
What bullshit, Sam. You put them everywhere.
Would you like it bound by Charter? Can I promise to do no evil? Tartar?
We tried that, Sam. The old folks have retired and it's run by young sociopaths who don't see anything wrong with even tapping their own poor children. They're smart-stupids, blinded by the buck and the tech, they do not realize what a sorry-ass country this could become WHEN that stuff falls in the wrong hands.
Then introduce a bill into the House. Ask your senator, man... or mouse?
Mumble National Security mumble, they say. I think they are under blackmail, today.
Then will you, won't you, take it to the Judge? [wink]
We did, in Hepting vs. AT&T. The only case that would have exposed, in the discovery process, the true extent of domestic telecom surveillance. The Ninth Circuit dismissed the case by citing a law that was enacted AFTER the case was filed. The Supreme Court refused to hear it. Miscarriage of justice, much?
Your bitter phrases take lots of time, you cannot even make them rhyme.
That's because I trying to communicate something REAL, asshole.
Should I put NSA in a box?
Guard the hen house with a fox?
You mean, appoint a Director that goes before Congress under oath, pretends to know nothing and needs both hands to find his ass in the dark?? We've tried that too. I thought it was unlawful to lie to Congress, guess not.
Would you like it on a boat? Would you like it with a goat?
That's the kind of transparent childish misdirection we've come to expect from you people. Like that stupid false metadata conundrum, a limited hang-out where you 'pretend' to relinquish voluntary data sharing agreements, and fill everyone's ears with talk of metadata. When all the while the backbone taps ensure you will obtain all that by other means, and more besides.
You do not like Big Brother, so you say,
Try it! Try it! And you may.
Fuck off.
It's been tried, Stalin would be proud of what we have built already. The TRUE extent of our domestic spy apparatus is, by now, probably hidden and partitioned into layers. The folks who built it out knew full well it would not pass Constitutional muster, and so they have probably created a series of interlocking pieces and black-funded faux-telecom 'private' companies that have title of the 'assets'. It may require a massive de-funding and deconstruction effort, and the sociopaths that have built this thing may 'turn turtle' and put their legs in the air... but that will NOT be enough. We're back to Hepting vs. AT&T again, it is the private telecommunications technicians that must come forward en masse and help identify these interconnect points.
I wish I could trust you, Uncle Sam
Can I interest you in some... spam?
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
Not sure if anything will actually read this, but I seriously doubt the NSA would obey anything coming from the supreme court, no matter what.
Didn't the NSA publicly state that they're only answerable to the president? enough said.
The real point you should be talking about is how a routine traffic stop made it all the way to the Supreme Court.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
There is no consistent set of rules which result in a Gore win. His camp acknowledged that by insisting on strict rules in conservative precincts and liberal rules in precincts that leaned Democrat. Additionally, you have to ALSO exclude votes from the men and women serving overseas.
If you think you can come up with ANY set of procedures that result in a Gore win when applied consistently, please link to it. You may have seen a Comedy Central sketch which implied otherwise. I can understand you're disappointed and perhaps a little bitter because it was SO close - if you ignore all the votes from those who volunteered to put their lives on the line to protect you.
I asked Santa if he could give me someone with a moderately high level of intelligence to sit down with all world leaders and explain that in this day and age of modern telecommunications and instant news flashes, its not such a chivalrous idea to rattle sabres against your enemies and panic the world's population every mother fucking day.
He couldn't find that in his bag. But, "Thanks for trying, Santa."
The most comprehensive recount was a $1 million effort sponsored by the Associated Press, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN, St. Petersburg Times, Palm Beach Post, Washington Post and the Tribune Co., which owns papers including the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Orlando Sentinel and Baltimore Sun. That press recount, the big one, found that Bush still won, even without the military votes.
One last time, if you think there was some other recount that found different, LINK TO IT.
There was one well known study afterwards claiming a Gore victory - not a recount, but an analysis of the press recount bases on applying different rules in different precincts. That's probably what you're thinking of. If you count dimpled ballots for Gore, while throwing out hanging chads for Bush, and throw out the military vote, you can get whatever result you want.
Let's see you shoot your asshole mouth off again here http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
APK
P.S.=> Why don't we meet sometime, in person, you little cowardly motherfucker? I've had it with your SNIDE bullshit, you little fucking cocksucker... apk
Hoist on your own snobby petard. The very study you mention is the one showing Gore winning a statewide recount under any scenario. Of course the chickenshit press buried that behind two pages of talking about how Bush would have still won if Gore's legal team had gotten their way in the recount, which again is irrelevant as he wasn't the one recounting the votes.
So are you going to move on from your fools mate and deal with the fact that Gore won Florida, or just retreat deeper into your anti-vaxxer denial?