Jump to content

Judge gives it to the NSA


Recommended Posts

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/17/dom...t.ap/index.html

I am surprised to see this and welcome it with open arms. I hope this judge gets more support on this matter. I don't think the wiretapping will stop right away, or the Bush administration may try to skirt around it by blasting "WE NEED THE TOOLS TO CATCH TERRORISTS!" I am hoping we find more of the actions of this administration illegal. I am sure it has broken a few rules itself.

Good to see this bit of news today.

EDIT, wow I should have read through the title before I posted.

"Judge holds up the constitution and says the wiretapping is illegal."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone's heard of doctor shopping right? Well, this is a case of court shopping. The ACLU has been shopping this lawsuit around for quite a while. It's not a suprise they finally found a judge sensitive to their agenda. However, have no fear, it shall be over-turned. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to see where the Supreme Court stands on this. I think everyone needs to be wary about how far the state can intrude into your lives. While fighting terrorism is important, the state could justify the same searches for fishing expeditions on other groups or individuals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right-wingers, of course, never shop for judges sympathetic to their agenda. Isn't that right?
Strawman.

Actually since you presented the argument (of judge shopping), then Black Dog's rebutle is definatly NOT a strawman. And someone is actually standing up for the Constitution for once. THAT is a good thing and a victory for the American people.

You cannot overturn the Constitution. If that is the case, then throw away the Constitution alltogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually since you presented the argument (of judge shopping), then Black Dog's rebutle is definatly NOT a strawman. And someone is actually standing up for the Constitution for once. THAT is a good thing and a victory for the American people.

You cannot overturn the Constitution. If that is the case, then throw away the Constitution alltogether

I disagree. My argument of judge shopping is accurate. The ACLU has shopped this lawsuit around. That's fact. Yes, anyone standing up for the Constitution is a good thing. I agree. And yes, you cannot overturn the Constitution, but you CAN overturn flawed judicial decisions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. My argument of judge shopping is accurate.

As was my counter example. Let me explain: if, as you imply, judicial decisions are based on the personal poltical ideology of the presiding justice, well, that's a two way street. So, if it's fair to question the validity of this decision based on the ideology of the judge, the same goes for any decision to overturn it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually since you presented the argument (of judge shopping), then Black Dog's rebutle is definatly NOT a strawman. And someone is actually standing up for the Constitution for once. THAT is a good thing and a victory for the American people.

You cannot overturn the Constitution. If that is the case, then throw away the Constitution alltogether

I disagree. My argument of judge shopping is accurate. The ACLU has shopped this lawsuit around. That's fact. Yes, anyone standing up for the Constitution is a good thing. I agree. And yes, you cannot overturn the Constitution, but you CAN overturn flawed judicial decisions.

You can disagree all you want, but you are flat out wrong that it is a strawman argument. The Bush admin has shopped for their judges as well to get all these measures in place. Alito has been know to support the Bush admin. Maybe this judge is swayed by the real evidence and has nothing political to gain. Just wants to do what is right for thr counrty. I admit he could be doing this for his own gain, and he would gain. As a US citizen he is holding up the Constitution and saying the NSA is doing illegal things. He is protecting himself and all US citizens by holding up and protecting the Constitution.

Maybe he is the one judge that cannot be bought or threatened by the Bush admin.

This wil not be overturned in the courts. You will see another Executive Order to counteract this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OH and you can bet Bush is shopping for Judges right now in order to overturn this ruling. Hard to do, this went to the Supreme Court.

CBS news dot com has Bush's reactions to the ruling.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/18/...in1910323.shtml

At 55 Seconds in he stumbles for words.

Strawman my ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh oh, looks like she wasn't exactly an impartial arbiter of the law. Looks like this judgement has more then one reason to be appealed. Looks like there was a reason the ACLU shopped this case to this specific judge. :)

A Matter of Appearances

So it would have been prudent for her to disclose any activity that might conceivably raise questions about her ability to be impartial. Regrettably, it was left to a conservative group, Judicial Watch, to point out her role as a trustee to a foundation that had given grants to a branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, a plaintiff in the case.

New York Times

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the judge clearly erred in not disclosing this involvement, it wouldn’t seem, based on the known facts, to rise to the level of a conflict of interest reasonably requiring that she recuse herself from hearing the case under existing ethics rules.

And now a trip in the wayback machine:

Ethics experts say Scalia, Thomas connections not conflicts of interest

Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia both have family connections to George W. Bush's side -- but ethics experts say neither justice has a conflict of interest or needs to step aside from voting in the Florida recount case.

Federal law requires "any justice" to "disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." And it also requires judges to step aside when a close relative "is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding" or "is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding."

...

Two of Scalia's nine children are connected with law firms representing Bush.

Two cases where there were superficial conflicts, yet only one is deemed worthy of appeal. Why is that Shady?

Why is the fact that Judge Gibbs is one of 50 members of a board that once gave the ACLU a grant (for a "gay rights project") invalidate that judges decision?

Looks like this judgement has more then one reason to be appealed.

Really? Because you haven't given even one yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CBS news dot com has Bush's reactions to the ruling.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/18/...in1910323.shtml

What a poor bumbling fool. Nothing like ignorance in power.

He talks pretty solid and unwaivering on things he truly beleives in. But if he feels in a bind of wants to hide something, he does this. He is a pretty easy man to figure out, his mannerisms give alot away.

Fool me once ect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this what the Right does?

Forget about the actual ruling. Tell us all the judge is a partisan hack with their own bought off agenda. Instead of actually saying weather the ruling was good or not. Someone upheld the constitution and wins one for REAL freedom and then they bitch cause the judge was part of the group the judge is now ruling in favour for.

Forget about the constitution.

Forget about your privacy being invaded.

Forget about all your rights and freedoms that are taken away from you.

That all does not matter caus the judge is a HACK.

Wake up 'Right' let's debate the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,71778-0.html

Just to give you an update on the Wiretapping program. Alot of what is in there is pretty shocking but the most shocking of all is this...

Specter has moved to have his bill voted upon next week by voice vote, called a unanimous consent motion, according to the ACLU's Graves. Such a procedure would leave no record of who voted for or against the bill.

Seems suspicious to me. No accountablility. Who voted for what? Is this the new way of doing things? In this day of tracking any information out there possible, would it only make sense on tracking who voted for what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,717
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Watson Winnefred
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...