General Discussion

blackspade

(10,056 posts)

77. That's awesome!

Reply to WillyT (Original post)

Mon Dec 16, 2013, 04:39 PM

Dec 2013

It seems like the tide may be turning on this and a lot of other fronts.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

217 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

BREAKING: Federal judge rules NSA data gathering on all US telephone calls is unconstitutional [View all] WillyT Dec 2013 OP

That will stand until it gets to the SCOTUS. I sure wish we could eliminate that 5-4 sinkingfeeling Dec 2013 #1

we could grasswire Dec 2013 #10

except Obama is in favor of this unconstitutional collection pipoman Dec 2013 #13

Third-party business records don't even require a warrant. That's been the case for a long time, now randome Dec 2013 #25

This is the "randome" and universal collection of personal data about nearly all Americans. JDPriestly Dec 2013 #50

Did Snowden have access to metadata records? randome Dec 2013 #57

We have seen only a tiny percentage of the documents that Snowden has provided to the press. JDPriestly Dec 2013 #62

Even the NSA doesn't know everything Snowden took so of course none of us do, either. randome Dec 2013 #71

The FISA warrant was devastating to all, especially lawyers, who have taken JDPriestly Dec 2013 #101

Devastating? ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2013 #143

WWII was a real war. We are not facing off with major world powers. JDPriestly Dec 2013 #163

The Constitution doesn't say "(*) Void during 'real' war" ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2013 #177

I hope that the Supreme Court clarifies the law on this. JDPriestly Dec 2013 #183

Call me a Democrat, but I trust them more than I do private companies ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2013 #189

As I explained, when it comes to your constitutional rights, the chilling of your rights, of your JDPriestly Dec 2013 #196

Your RIGHT to privacy only extends to those things you keep private ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2013 #204

I'm a 70 year old woman, not a porn fan,and I am thinking about the constitutional right to privacy. JDPriestly Dec 2013 #205

JD, you're arguing against precident ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2013 #206

I would love to hear your response to my discussion of your right to privacy with regard to the JDPriestly Dec 2013 #207

Abuses in the courtroom are almost entirely... ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2013 #208

The Bill of Rights was written in language that prohibited wrongful things that had actually JDPriestly Dec 2013 #209

George Washington spent over 13% of his budget on intelligence ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2013 #210

Today's hypo is tomorrow's reality. JDPriestly Dec 2013 #211

I have to add that it isn't the proponents of privacy that have to prove that they have the right JDPriestly Dec 2013 #212

Well you may end up getting your wish... ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2013 #213

Any and all federal judges should be handling surveillance cases. It shouldn't be a small group JDPriestly Dec 2013 #214

Well, it *is* that way ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2013 #215

The Constitution guarantees public trials. JDPriestly Dec 2013 #216

I admire your tenacity. You fight for the authoritarian state as if you thought rhett o rick Dec 2013 #112

Pointing out the facts as I see them is not 'fighting for' anyone. randome Dec 2013 #116

Well as long as you are comfortable in your denial bubble, who am I to criticize. rhett o rick Dec 2013 #118

You really think the NSA should be concerned with economic issues? randome Dec 2013 #139

Again you are JAQing. Just Asking Questions. rhett o rick Dec 2013 #164

I bet you enjoyed the 60-minutes show propagandizing the NSA. nm rhett o rick Dec 2013 #119

what you do is NOT pointing out facts. It's an extraordinary illustration of confirmation bias cali Dec 2013 #131

The facts are that collection of third-party business records is legal. randome Dec 2013 #133

thank you ever so for this post which is exactly what I refer to as your confirmation bias, dear cali Dec 2013 #140

The 'real fact' is that one judge since 2006 says he doesn't think it's legal. randome Dec 2013 #145

Me & Joe Biden disagree: bvar22 Dec 2013 #144

It's a desperate denial. A fear of reality. nm rhett o rick Dec 2013 #169

I admire your silly extremist rhetoric... ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2013 #147

Only white people of Libertarian ideology are concerned with this? neverforget Dec 2013 #155

I never said "Only"... ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2013 #158

Let's take this paragraph apart shall we? neverforget Dec 2013 #160

I thank you for your post. You prove what we are up against. You conservatives call us/me rhett o rick Dec 2013 #167

You're most "welcome"... ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2013 #188

Of course you are a Democrat. Anyone can make that claim. I think Penny Pritzker calls her rhett o rick Dec 2013 #190

Rhett.... just like Teabaggers, you imagine yourself an expert at things you have no clue about... ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2013 #192

So you just couldnt help slipping into the ridicule. I guess when all else fails... rhett o rick Dec 2013 #193

You don't need to have a Juris Doctorate in Constitutional Law Hissyspit Dec 2013 #195

You don't need a JD in law to judge constitutionality. NuclearDem Dec 2013 #198

Not at war with the 1%? What fucking rock have you been living under? NuclearDem Dec 2013 #199

Wrong. Nothing trumps the Constitution which is the law of the land. What you are saying is utterly sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #146

We have had 230 years of defining what the Constitution means. randome Dec 2013 #149

You've just been over-ruled in a real court. So I'm not concerned about your opinion on this right sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #151

'...egregious violations of people's rights...' randome Dec 2013 #154

Yes, as a victim of it, I am outraged. I don't like peeping toms and last I heard, it is illegal to sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #181

Obama favors this garbage. woo me with science Dec 2013 #24

It's clear 'they' have 'somethin' on him. n/t Amonester Dec 2013 #128

Or it's clear he was a corporate Trojan horse all along. woo me with science Dec 2013 #153

Or he might not have all the power some seem to think. nm rhett o rick Dec 2013 #191

Oh, I doubt he does. woo me with science Dec 2013 #197

Penny Pritzker. nuff said. nm rhett o rick Dec 2013 #200

Confident a higher court will strike down this ruling on the guise that national security indepat Dec 2013 #92

Let the games begin. Ranchemp. Dec 2013 #2

What happened to Feinstein? painesghost Dec 2013 #65

This Californian doesn't give a two bit damn about what Senator Feinstein thinks. Jack Rabbit Dec 2013 #82

Neither does this Californian give a rats ass regarding DiFi's thoughts on the time of day 2banon Dec 2013 #103

I'm Sure NSA Will Blackmail A Higher Judge billhicks76 Dec 2013 #97

Yep. If it was about terrorism they would triple their efforts at standard law enforcement GoneFishin Dec 2013 #134

And we thought J Edgar Hoover was bad? Ranchemp. Dec 2013 #135

Our Country Is So Stupid To Have Allowed This billhicks76 Dec 2013 #171

K & R malaise Dec 2013 #3

He ignores the FISA judge approval and also previous rulings on third-party records. randome Dec 2013 #4

The FISA courts that have admitted they were merely rubber stamping NSA's bullshit? riderinthestorm Dec 2013 #5

You should know by now how that argument goes. randome Dec 2013 #7

I understand your point buts let's face it.... Logical Dec 2013 #17

MUCH greater transparency and oversight is always preferable. randome Dec 2013 #18

Where did the judge say that there has been no judicial review? Vattel Dec 2013 #41

"...for purposes of querying it and analyzing it without judicial approval..." randome Dec 2013 #48

FISA Ignores the Scope of Previous Desicions SpcMnky Dec 2013 #35

The debate occurred in 1979 when third-party business records were ruled... randome Dec 2013 #44

Oh, that's right hueymahl Dec 2013 #58

Scope was not addressed SpcMnky Dec 2013 #72

Debate should NEVER end. But I sincerely doubt this goes any further than an appeal and reversal. randome Dec 2013 #76

Gotcha SpcMnky Dec 2013 #78

You don't doubt, you obviously hope. JackRiddler Dec 2013 #201

Klayman vs. Obama appeal is nearing a decision veveto Aug 2014 #217

The previous decisions on third-party records were decided on very different facts. JDPriestly Dec 2013 #55

+1 hueymahl Dec 2013 #59

very well said, JDP 2banon Dec 2013 #105

When someone doesn't want to understand Aerows Dec 2013 #162

It's interesting, isn't it? I mean sort of. 2banon Dec 2013 #176

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on U4ikLefty Dec 2013 #182

There's an apt quote if ever there was one. Upton Sinclair should be on the list of "must reads".. 2banon Dec 2013 #187

Now, this quote was worth logging in to give a woo me with science Dec 2013 #202

Excellent news. K&R pa28 Dec 2013 #6

There you go!! Great work!! Thank you for me and all those who don't know you've done this for them! ancianita Dec 2013 #8

But how will the GOP blackmail anyone dickthegrouch Dec 2013 #9

It's irrelevant. The GOP is a tool not the power. They are not unlike Hitlers Brown Shirts. rhett o rick Dec 2013 #168

3 things really stick out here Cali_Democrat Dec 2013 #11

A Federal judge, or a FISA pipoman Dec 2013 #19

A FISA judge is a Federal judge appointed to the FISA court. Cali_Democrat Dec 2013 #23

i have a hunch a FISA judges first pipoman Dec 2013 #51

This judge is basically ProSense Dec 2013 #22

Klayman: Cali_Democrat Dec 2013 #32

Klayman is creepy-freaky. He was a nut job about Bill Clinton, too. nt MADem Dec 2013 #40

Metadata doesn't need a warrant SCOTUS ruled in 1979 in Lee v Maryland that metadata wasn't okaawhatever Dec 2013 #28

Read the judge's opinion in this case. Vattel Dec 2013 #46

I was responding to her statement about warrants being in place for metadata not referring okaawhatever Dec 2013 #49

The warrant was not specific enough. Th1onein Dec 2013 #31

okaawhatever's post, right above yours, is correct, though. randome Dec 2013 #36

If it wasn't specific enough, then the judge shouldn't have approved it. Cali_Democrat Dec 2013 #38

Rubber stamping warrants that demand ALL of the records from a telecom isn't Th1onein Dec 2013 #43

everyone's got their own books Cali_Democrat Dec 2013 #47

The answer to your question is . . . hueymahl Dec 2013 #60

I am impervious to personal attacks Cali_Democrat Dec 2013 #75

Come on, Cali.....let's be logical here..... Th1onein Dec 2013 #104

The metadata is stored in a 'black box' type system. randome Dec 2013 #117

Ah yes. Via the authoritarian state. Some really want to let their authoritarian rhett o rick Dec 2013 #113

And who appoints the FISA judges? Chief Justice John Roberts, conservative W appointee. neverforget Dec 2013 #109

Important points. But the link goes to a Huffpo title different from the OP: freshwest Dec 2013 #115

This was ruling without ruling. He didn't say it IS unconstitutional. DevonRex Dec 2013 #120

Oh NOES! MNBrewer Dec 2013 #12

Like the government cares about the law. nt Demo_Chris Dec 2013 #14

A small victory Dopers_Greed Dec 2013 #15

Methinks the judge missed 60 minutes Bragi Dec 2013 #16

hee hee..good one. Jefferson23 Dec 2013 #20

I slept like a baby after seeing that. progressoid Dec 2013 #69

Yep, it is! n/t Jefferson23 Dec 2013 #21

I wouldnt start bouncing for joy just yet WillyT. cstanleytech Dec 2013 #26

knr Th1onein Dec 2013 #27

And in other breaking news... Glassunion Dec 2013 #29

Fuck Yeah!!! libodem Dec 2013 #30

Thank you Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald. Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2013 #33

+1000000 woo me with science Dec 2013 #37

For what, being traitors to this country? No thanks. I think changes need to be made to the NSA okaawhatever Dec 2013 #54

lol Jefferson23 Dec 2013 #56

Exposing a crime is not a crime. grahamhgreen Dec 2013 #67

What a silly thing to say. Plenty of crimes expose other crimes (nt) Recursion Dec 2013 #107

Exposing the pattern and practice of a series of crimes committed by corrupt officials is your duty. grahamhgreen Dec 2013 #124

And there are legal and illegal ways to do it (nt) Recursion Dec 2013 #126

And what is the 'legal' way to do it? AgingAmerican Dec 2013 #137

No, it just doesn't generate the instant results Snowden wanted. Recursion Dec 2013 #138

Imagine a shooter was killing people in a school and you tripped him up with your foot, so he grahamhgreen Dec 2013 #156

Stealing is a crime... Dr Hobbitstein Dec 2013 #136

Not reporting the crimes he was witnessing could make him an accessory after the fact: grahamhgreen Dec 2013 #157

My point is that he didn't expose the crimes properly... Dr Hobbitstein Dec 2013 #159

Snowden and Greenwald Aerows Dec 2013 #165

I understand your point. I don't see that there was a proper channel for grahamhgreen Dec 2013 #166

I think we have a few Senators and Representatives Dr Hobbitstein Dec 2013 #178

lol SpcMnky Dec 2013 #180

Is it? Dr Hobbitstein Dec 2013 #186

only with certain organizations, it is... SpcMnky Dec 2013 #179

Not Pancho Villa? I'm so disappointed. Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2013 #68

The Pancho Villa Comment Had Me Cracking Up HangOnKids Dec 2013 #142

More like an American patriot warning that tyranny is comming SpcMnky Dec 2013 #84

No, you're doing it wrong... SidDithers Dec 2013 #129

well played nt arely staircase Dec 2013 #161

LOL, they fooled you. You must be afraid!! Afraid so need protection. LOL, cracks me up. n-t Logical Dec 2013 #96

Yes, thank-you to a couple of patriots... polichick Dec 2013 #73

+1 Poll_Blind Dec 2013 #80

Bingo! LittleBlue Dec 2013 #86

Snowden did not... adavid Dec 2013 #174

K&R! G_j Dec 2013 #34

K&R Long overdue. idwiyo Dec 2013 #39

This should bring the badge-sniffers out in force AngryAmish Dec 2013 #42

Usual suspects already making an appearence hueymahl Dec 2013 #61

The fact that he is not tells us volumes AngryAmish Dec 2013 #64

Good, I hope this is upheld and authoritarian heads explode everywhere. Zorra Dec 2013 #45

Good, time to get this over with uponit7771 Dec 2013 #52

You should change your headline Vattel Dec 2013 #53

Non HufPo link hootinholler Dec 2013 #63

So who goes to jail? grahamhgreen Dec 2013 #66

You're thinking this is a country of laws and justice. polichick Dec 2013 #74

The Headline Sounds like Red Meat for the RW Blogosphere, & not much more ... brett_jv Dec 2013 #70

Nice summary Cali_Democrat Dec 2013 #79

Only for the politics is a sport fans does it come off like that. SpcMnky Dec 2013 #88

Translation : You agree with the dragnet collection of metadata Penicilino Dec 2013 #132

That's awesome! blackspade Dec 2013 #77

Not a problem...we get England or Australia to do it for us and in return HereSince1628 Dec 2013 #81

Don't worry. The Supreme Court will be government lapdogs again LittleBlue Dec 2013 #83

The order..which only applies to Klayman and his client, is stayed. I wonder why Klayman msanthrope Dec 2013 #85

The broader requests have all been dismissed Savannahmann Dec 2013 #89

Your last paragraph would eliminate the third-party business records exception. msanthrope Dec 2013 #91

thank God for at least one small step in the direction of restoring Constitutional government Douglas Carpenter Dec 2013 #87

Yay, and THANK-YOU Edward Snowden! JimDandy Dec 2013 #90

k&r... spanone Dec 2013 #93

A nice sentiment. Unfortunately some people have decided the Constitution doesn't apply to them. Warren DeMontague Dec 2013 #94

. Jesus Malverde Dec 2013 #95

"Training" societies in tolerating interceptions no more banksters Dec 2013 #98

Snowden said the ruling, by a US district judge, justified his disclosures. countryjake Dec 2013 #99

Take that, Obama!! bigwillq Dec 2013 #100

"systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data" bucolic_frolic Dec 2013 #102

I hope this gathers snow as it rolls downhill…possible cudgel issue in an election year? silvershadow Dec 2013 #106

Richard Leon, Vaughn Walker, and Anna Diggs Taylor. OnyxCollie Dec 2013 #108

The NSA doesn't give a shit what that judge ruled or what the US constitution says. L0oniX Dec 2013 #110

I'd like to see the Snowden and Greenwald haters truebluegreen Dec 2013 #111

Judge ordered gov't to halt bulk collection of metadata and destroy information already collected! reformist2 Dec 2013 #114

"...I will stay my order pending appeal." DevonRex Dec 2013 #121

Translation: NobodyHere Dec 2013 #194

Other translation: I'm sounding tough for Klayman but DevonRex Dec 2013 #203

CUE THE VONAGE THEME! rocktivity Dec 2013 #122

Meanwhile they've gotten away with ................god only knows. Phlem Dec 2013 #123

SCOTUS has the final say, and we KNOW what that'll be... blkmusclmachine Dec 2013 #125

Citing his ability to read unambiguous English, the judge ruled that.... nt Deep13 Dec 2013 #127

Geewillikers, they're sure to stop doing it now. DeSwiss Dec 2013 #130

k & r! n/t wildbilln864 Dec 2013 #141

Inconceivable! DirkGently Dec 2013 #148

KICK - Thanks Mr Snowden :) Lenomsky Dec 2013 #150

K&R. I'm getting a kick out of watching the authoritarian types get hysterical over this quinnox Dec 2013 #152

Their dithering can be amusing... in infrequent, small doses, otherwise... SpcMnky Dec 2013 #175

Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Dec 2013 #170

Thank you, Edward Snowden. woo me with science Dec 2013 #172

Good, now... adavid Dec 2013 #173

This is such a good sign. nt Hekate Dec 2013 #184

I hope he avoids small planes. And takes all manner of precautions. I can't imagine silvershadow Dec 2013 #185