F.U. right wingers. NSA eavesdropping program ruled unconstitutional

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Lord Avalon

You have a valid point, but conservatives are always b!tching about "activist judges," and how they want judges who interpret the Constitution strictly, going by "original intent." So you'd think that they'd support this ruling.

Funny, nearly all conservatives I've known and read were strict constructionists. "Original intent" involves the very sort of subjective interpretation they find reprehensible.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Ouch even the libruhhl media think this decsion half baked & half considered

A Judicial Misfire
The first federal court opinion on warrantless NSA surveillance is full of sound and fury.

Friday, August 18, 2006; Page A20

THE NATION would benefit from a serious, scholarly and hard-hitting judicial examination of the National Security Agency's program of warrantless surveillance. The program exists on ever-more uncertain legal ground; it is at least in considerable tension with federal law and the Bill of Rights. Careful judicial scrutiny could serve both to hold the administration accountable and to provide firmer legal footing for such surveillance as may be necessary for national security.

Unfortunately, the decision yesterday by a federal district court in Detroit, striking down the NSA's program, is neither careful nor scholarly, and it is hard-hitting only in the sense that a bludgeon is hard-hitting. The angry rhetoric of U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor will no doubt grab headlines. But as a piece of judicial work -- that is, as a guide to what the law requires and how it either restrains or permits the NSA's program -- her opinion will not be helpful.
Judge Taylor's opinion is certainly long on throat-clearing sound bites. "There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution," she thunders. She declares that "the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution." And she insists that Mr. Bush has "undisputedly" violated the First and Fourth Amendments, the constitutional separation of powers, and federal surveillance law.

But the administration does, in fact, vigorously dispute these conclusions. Nor is its dispute frivolous. The NSA's program, about which many facts are still undisclosed, exists at the nexus of inherent presidential powers, laws purporting to constrict those powers, the constitutional right of the people to be free from unreasonable surveillance, and a broad congressional authorization to use force against al-Qaeda. That authorization, the administration argues, permits the wiretapping notwithstanding existing federal surveillance law; inherent presidential powers, it suggests, allow it to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance on its own authority. You don't have to accept either contention to acknowledge that these are complicated, difficult issues. Judge Taylor devotes a scant few pages to dismissing them, without even discussing key precedents.

The judge may well be correct in her bottom line that the program exceeds presidential authority, even during wartime. We harbor grave doubt both that Congress authorized warrantless surveillance as part of the war and that Mr. Bush has the constitutional power to act outside of normal surveillance statutes that purport to be the exclusive legal authorities for domestic spying. But her opinion, which as the first court venture into this territory will garner much attention, is unhelpful either in evaluating or in ensuring the program's legality. Fortunately, as this case moves forward on appeal and as other cases progress in other courts, it won't be the last word.

WaPo Editorial

[Arrian]

And, in that sense, I am displeased. I'd much rather a less strident decision that was on firm legal ground.

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Kos kids are lamenting the intellectual shallowness of this opinion spells doom for future decisions to uphold this decision.

[Dinner]

Ogie, just about every paper in the country is running pro and con editorials on it today. It isn't surprising that anyone can find an editorial to suit their tastes.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I've read the Federalist Papers, and I find it inconceivable that the original founders would object to many of the current exceptions. Maybe you should try actually reading some of the evidence presented.

Then perhaps you should read them again (as well as some of the works of other Founding Fathers, as influential as Hamiltion/Jefferson/Madison were)...

The power the federal government has right now, even without warrantless searches and whatnot, would scare the @#$% out of pretty much any of the founding fathers.

I'm not willing to say that ALL of the founding fathers would have objected to the wiretaps and whatnot, but certainly a good number of them would not have supported the power of the government to spy on its own citizens. Certainly not the FEDERAL government.

[Jon Miller]

What I find amazing, is that right wingers are the ones who are favoring this governmental intrusion.. when they are the ones who want the government out of taxation/etc.

I think they are just screwy because of 'being in power'.

JM

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by snoopy369


Then perhaps you should read them again (as well as some of the works of other Founding Fathers, as influential as Hamiltion/Jefferson/Madison were)...

The power the federal government has right now, even without warrantless searches and whatnot, would scare the @#$% out of pretty much any of the founding fathers.

I'm not willing to say that ALL of the founding fathers would have objected to the wiretaps and whatnot, but certainly a good number of them would not have supported the power of the government to spy on its own citizens. Certainly not the FEDERAL government.

not repeating the talking points Ogie so faithfully brings up until they become true

You're not a model republican, snoopy369

[Dinner]

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/CaffertyFile-NSA-Ruling.wmv

Cafferty (A CNN anchorman) has great things to say about the Court's ruling on the illegal wire taping case.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Ogie, just about every paper in the country is running pro and con editorials on it today. It isn't surprising that anyone can find an editorial to suit their tastes.

And you would expect them to do so. What you wouldn't necessarily expect is the reaction from Kos or WaPo. You'ld rather expect them to have the NYT style lauding and applauding reaction.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by VJ

not repeating the talking points Ogie so faithfully brings up until they become true

You're not a model republican, snoopy369

Actually the executive has far less powers today than any other war time president in this particular arena.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Then perhaps you should read them again (as well as some of the works of other Founding Fathers, as influential as Hamiltion/Jefferson/Madison were)...

Maybe you should read my post again.

[Flip McWho]

Actually the executive has far less powers today than any other war time president

Aye, remember you're fighting a war on terror that non of the authors of the Federalist Papers could have accounted for.

[Dinner]

And then there is the fact that Congress never actually declared war which is how Abe got his war time powers.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Lord Avalon
You have a valid point, but conservatives are always b!tching about "activist judges," and how they want judges who interpret the Constitution strictly, going by "original intent."

Why? Given that it's debateable that such a thing even exists or how it could be determined, I'd have to be really curious who you feel is arguing for such a concept or if that is what they actually meant.

So you'd think that they'd support this ruling.

I'm just curious how the plaintiffs got standing considering the fact that AFAIK they never demonstrated an actual injury.