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.
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.
It shouldn't be necessary to avail oneself of legal aid to pursue civil torts.
It shouldn't, but it is, and there's no way the Roberts court will change that.
His choice to do this himself is in itself a protest of the horrible state of affairs in American courtrooms.
A person representing himself has a fool for a client.
There are very good reasons never to represent yourself, even if you are a lawyer. The Fifth Amendment is one.
Snowden is a Hero
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.
The American justice system has been co-opted by lawyers who've constructed a labyrinthine system of rules meant to enrich themselves by wresting control from the common man and forcing the use of their services. It shouldn't be necessary to avail oneself of legal aid to pursue civil torts. His choice to do this himself is in itself a protest of the horrible state of affairs in American courtrooms.
It shouldn't be necessary to hire a plumber to hook up a dishwasher, or hire an electrician to wire an extra circuit. I am a licensed professional engineer with a strong background in piping and electrical. I can do both tasks easilly, and understand the theory of each. When the building inspector comes around though, I would be biting my nails. Only someone who does a trade or profession for a living every day has a hope of knowing all the little rules, tricks, and pitfalls.
It's fine to have a law enthusiast represent themselves when it is their own skin on the line. Not so good when they will be arguing a case that may well be the legal precedent for the next 100 years. The only saving grace is that if he does get to the Supreme Court, the justices generally do a good job of making all the arguments themselves and just use the lawyers as their pawns to advance their preconceived talking points.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.