Recently? The intelligence agencies were doing all manner of inappropriate things throughout the 50s, 60s and in the 70s until the Church Committee was created to investigate. Their gross abuses of power during those decades was the entire point of why the FISA legislation was passed. And it was not to create the rubber-stamp court that we have now.
It's amazing how 9/11 has made so many people forget the rampant abuse of power in the NSA's and CIA's history.
Yes, you can not make a contract with someone in any country that has clauses that violate that country's law. That leads to either just the clauses themselves or the entire contract to be nullified.
In other words, the States can decide that even the Supreme Court has overstepped its bounds, and nullify laws passed by Congress even if the Supreme Court has not struck them down.
That's got to be the funniest post you've made yet. The states will do jack and shit because:
1) It's doubtful any majority of state governments are against this 2) Even if there was such a majority, the Federal government would simply use the threat of cutting off the 10s of billions in funding they give to the states leaving them with huge budget holes.
I'm sure they're simply quaking in their boots about the "everybody that will correct them". Except then you rejoin the real world where they don't give a shit.
If they don't hear the case, the lower court ruling stands. The lower court ruling does not favor the NSA, so it cannot stand. Therefore SCOTUS *will* hear the appeal, the only question is on what grounds will they let the NSA win.
Of course they'll hear it if the circuit doesn't overturn it. SCOTUS won't let this decision stand. My point is that SCOTUS is under no obligation to hear an appellate case whether there is standing or not.
They really would be putting themselves in a very bad position if they were to make yet another decision that was both unpopular and obviously incorrect.
Again, unless Congress decides to remove them from office so what? SCOTUS have made plenty of unpopular decisions. And yet not a single one had ever been removed.
Did you have some actual argument? Why would the president use that when the Supreme0 Court is siding with him?
As James Madison famously wrote about in his Report of 1800, the Supreme Court is no more "immune" from politics than any other branch of the Federal government. Asserting otherwise is just plain ignorant.
Get back to me when they actually do face a consequence. I won't hold my breath?
Slashdot Mirror
There has been a minimal Ubuntu install that you can then install your DE of choice on top of since at least 8.04.
Yeah but he shills because he is generally scared of the "Mooslems" that are coming for him.
Recently? The intelligence agencies were doing all manner of inappropriate things throughout the 50s, 60s and in the 70s until the Church Committee was created to investigate. Their gross abuses of power during those decades was the entire point of why the FISA legislation was passed. And it was not to create the rubber-stamp court that we have now.
It's amazing how 9/11 has made so many people forget the rampant abuse of power in the NSA's and CIA's history.
Lies! Iraq had WMDs! Didn't you see the 3D renderings of the mobile port-potties that Saddam had?!?
But ninnies like cold fjord will eat it up. They need Big Brother to tuck them in at night or they'll wet their bed.
They will just simply claim that happened because they didn't have enough spying powers.
And to add, as the story notes they were self censoring the results.
Yes, you can not make a contract with someone in any country that has clauses that violate that country's law. That leads to either just the clauses themselves or the entire contract to be nullified.
Even if I have a presence in the UK, if a block there agreed to be bound by CA law, we have to go there to settle this contract.
No, that would simply make it an illegal contract and it would be nullified.
Bullshit. You're still a thief even if my house happened to be unlocked at the time.
Ironically Google stood alone in fighting China and refused to censor...
That is quite an interesting rewriting of history. Google was censoring the results on the mainland China page starting in 2006 up until to 2010. They only stopped censoring in Jan 2010 in response to the Chinese hack attack against them
There are laws against popularization of gay relations with minors ONLY.
Ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority amount of child abusers are not gay?
Why should anyone have to like someone? Maybe gay people should quit demanding entitlements on others' opinions.
Yeah, how dare they ask not to be thrown in jail simply because they're gay. What next? They think they're actually human beings?
Oh no! "Being corrected"!!! I sure they will simply die of fright from the mention!
"Corrected" by legal scholars, and later by the history books. And probably by a later Supreme Court.
Oh lord! They're sure to faint from such a horror!!
But don't discount this. The written word has power. Supreme Court justices do not want to be remembered by history as idiots.
Yeah, because that has stopped the court from making bad decisions before right? Riiiiiiight.
Great, so why would a president use that against a court that was siding with him?
In other words, the States can decide that even the Supreme Court has overstepped its bounds, and nullify laws passed by Congress even if the Supreme Court has not struck them down.
That's got to be the funniest post you've made yet. The states will do jack and shit because:
1) It's doubtful any majority of state governments are against this
2) Even if there was such a majority, the Federal government would simply use the threat of cutting off the 10s of billions in funding they give to the states leaving them with huge budget holes.
And before someone comes along, I know they are not elected. That was my point. These "they'll be corrected!!" threats are silly.
I'm sure they're simply quaking in their boots about the "everybody that will correct them". Except then you rejoin the real world where they don't give a shit.
If they don't hear the case, the lower court ruling stands. The lower court ruling does not favor the NSA, so it cannot stand. Therefore SCOTUS *will* hear the appeal, the only question is on what grounds will they let the NSA win.
Of course they'll hear it if the circuit doesn't overturn it. SCOTUS won't let this decision stand. My point is that SCOTUS is under no obligation to hear an appellate case whether there is standing or not.
They probably can't afford another of same.
Because they'll be voted out of office? Removed by Congress? What can they "not afford", exactly?
They simply dare not do that.
Because you say so?
The public is fed up with them as it is.
And yet they don't care.
They really would be putting themselves in a very bad position if they were to make yet another decision that was both unpopular and obviously incorrect.
Again, unless Congress decides to remove them from office so what? SCOTUS have made plenty of unpopular decisions. And yet not a single one had ever been removed.
But...but...but the amorphous "everyone is going to make them pay!!!
*I* am naive? That's hilarious.
You're correct. Your naiveté is quite hilarious.
Try this on for size. [wikipedia.org]
Did you have some actual argument? Why would the president use that when the Supreme0 Court is siding with him?
As James Madison famously wrote about in his Report of 1800, the Supreme Court is no more "immune" from politics than any other branch of the Federal government. Asserting otherwise is just plain ignorant.
Get back to me when they actually do face a consequence. I won't hold my breath?
Ah, yes, the retarded partisan that has to defend his own side at all costs. And people wonder why this country is going down the shitter.