Top Court rejects ACLU domestic spying lawsuit

[rfranklin]

Source: MSNBC

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to the Bush administration's domestic spying program.

The justices' decision Tuesday includes no comment explaining why they turned down the appeal from the American Civil Liberties Union.

The ACLU wanted the court to allow a lawsuit by the group and individuals over the warrantless wiretapping program. An appeals court dismissed the suit because the plaintiffs cannot prove their communications have been monitored.



Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23235602/

[H2O Man]

1. Discouraging. n/t

[Radio_Lady]

48. Extremely upsetting. Thanks for posting, however.

Anybody want to discuss this with me? This will NOT be recorded or broadcast. It's only an internal surveying project.

Call 503-293-1902 until 1:30 PM PT/4:30 PM ET.

I'm talking to citizens like you to gain support for our 24/7 reading service.

Cheers.

Radio Lady in Oregon

[ClassWarrior]

2. BREAKING: Top Court a bunch of Radical RW tools making a mockery...

...of our justice system.

NGU.

[daa]

38. Especially that dildo Alito nt

[indepat]

43. Let's all repeat in unison: Top Court a bunch of Radical RW tools making a mockery

of our justice system: why do these rabidly radical RW tools hate our country so and why the hell don't they just leave it? :shrug:

[fascisthunter]

3. Supreme Court=Corporate Tools=No Integrity

repeat it everywhere.

[C_U_L8R]

4. Truly Kafka-esque

there is no greater example of why this election matters so much.
What a bunch of creeps.

[hisownpetard]

28. A perfect summation.

[alfredo]

5. Why am I not surprised?

[Ezlivin]

8. Because you are as cynical as the rest of us

Like us, you've seen the direction this country has headed for the past 8 years. You've heard the lies, seen the prevarications and you can almost smell the foul odor of corruption.

And, like us, you know that our liberties are being stripped from us.

[alfredo]

18. I used to work for the guys in your phone card graphic. I have no

illusions.

[sonias]

6. It's what we argued all along - SCOTUS is important

bush has been a disaster on so many levels and his appointments to SCOTUS are more proof. We're going to be paying for these a long time.
:mad:


Sonia

[Joe Bacon]

7. The Whore Court abandoned all principles in 2000.

To the five whores on the Clown Court, "justice" means Just-us Rich White Folks

[OKthatsIT]

60. That's for sure. Federalist Society Whores.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

9. If you ever needed a reason to vote Dem this November

this ruling by SCOTUS should be enough. We must be sure we elect a Democrat who can stay in for two terms and pave the way for more Dems to follow if we want to change the makeup of the Court.

[redqueen]

19. Exactly.

*sigh*

[Old and In the Way]

10. "the plaintiffs cannot prove their communications have been monitored"

And all this time I thought the FISA Act was about giving Telco's (and this administration) immunity for spying on Americans. Looks like the SC will protect the Decider that they installed. I really hope that the next President will start wiretapping these people and use their dark secrets to get them to retire early. Either that or expand the Supreme Court to take away the Republican advantage on the Court.

[TooBigaTent]

15. Amen to that. The court MUST be remade, by any means necessary. nt

[maddezmom]

11. Supreme court won't review Bush domestic spying case

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned down a legal challenge to the warrantless domestic spying program President George W. Bush created after the September 11 attacks.

The American Civil Liberties Union had asked the justices to hear the case after a lower court ruled the ACLU, other groups and individuals that sued the government had no legal right to do so because they could not prove they had been affected by the program.

The civil liberties group also asked the nation's highest court to make clear that Bush does not have the power under the U.S. Constitution to engage in intelligence surveillance within the United States that Congress has expressly prohibited.

"The president is bound by the laws that Congress enacts. He may disagree with those laws, but he may not disobey them," Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, said in the appeal.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080219/pl_nm/bush_eavesdropping_court_dc_1

[stellanoir]

12. bummer

[Jim__]

13. That sucks!

But, then, so does our current Supreme Court.

[ixion]

14. the supreme court of BushCo

:grr: :argh:

[SteppingRazor]

16. Eh, I gotta say, it's not that surprising -- and not just because of the conservative SCOTUS.

This line in the story -- "An appeals court dismissed the suit because the plaintiffs cannot prove their communications have been monitored" -- is very telling. It's one of the most basic concepts of civil action that the plaintiff has the burden of proof. If the plaintiffs can't prove wrongdoing, then there's no case.

And that's what happened here. However, that Kafka reference that a DUer threw out elsewhere in this thread (on edit: props to C_U_L8R!) is particularly apropos. The plaintiffs in this case could not prove the government wiretapped them because the government declared that its wiretapping records were a national-security secret. One can almost imagine this as a scene from The Trial. The plaintiffs here had to prove the government did something wrong, but they were not allowed to prove it.

So, while the underlying concepts in this trial are bizarrely Kafka-esque, the appeals court and SCOTUS decision to not take the case makes sense on a purely superficial line of legal reasoning -- the plaintiffs failed the burden of proof.

A lot of people on this thread have said that this is why we need a Democratic president -- for a more-liberal SCOTUS. But I think that slightly misses the point. Even a liberal court would have had to rule in the way this SCOTUS did. This lawsuit was doomed from the beginning.

In this particular case, we need a Democratic president not so that we will have more-liberal judges on the SCOTUS, but so that the president himself can, through executive order, allow government wiretapping records to be used in court, or even go there himself and run an investigation of warrantless wiretapping through the Justice Department. Until then, lawsuits that involve national-security secrets are doomed to failure.

[cascadiance]

17. IMPEACH! SCOTUS justices AS WELL!

[amb123]

31. Amen brother or sister!

:patriot:

[yardwork]

20. This is why it is essential that we elect a Democrat in November.

Stop throwing mud at Democratic candidates.

[Hissyspit]

21. Corrupt fuckers.

(SCOTUS not ACLU)

[PuppyBismark]

22. This is why we need to work together to elect a Democratic President

If we need any more evidence that we need to stop all the bickering and get down to electing a Democratic President, this should show us what the target is. Either candidate will do just fine, but not McCain! This forum should not be a source for negative general election fodder.

[JDPriestly]

23. There is nothing unusual about this decision to deny certiorari

There is nothing unusual about the dismissal of the lawsuit in the first place. It is fundamental to our legal system that you have to prove that you have standing, and in some cases depending on the claim and what you are seeking that you have damages. You can't sue based on the speculation that your e-mails may have been Read.

The issue of the wiretapping has to be resolved in the legislature. Congress must take the lead on this. If Congress passes a law requiring the government to advise people that their communications have been or will be picked up in a surveillance operation, then the administration will have to comply with that law. That could be a compromise on the whole immunity issue. The telecommunication companies could be granted immunity provided that they inform each American against whom they are not bringing charges who was the victim of surveillance that they were, when, what communications, etc. Why not? They have the databases. If they have the time and money to collect this information, they have the time and money to let us know what they did and are doing. If they say the job is just too overwhelming, then we know that they are irresponsibly intruding on all of our communications. This is how Congress could resolve the impasse. Sure, you can wiretap, but if you wiretap on innocent people, you have to confess you have done it to those people.

This compromise is not ideal, but I believe that the real reason the government wants to spy on its own people is in order to intimidate and to have a feeling of power over us people. If the government tells those of us that it is spying on that it is spying on us, then it loses its control over the act of spying and will probably find a more efficient way to focus on real terrorists and leave us law-abiding citizens with our boring lives alone. My idea is a kind of therapy for a government gone wild.

[Leopolds Ghost]

29. Kick for an excellent comment.

[bean fidhleir]

36. "you have to prove you have standing"

I believe that's what preliminary hearings are all about, where evidence is reviewed such as that provided by that retired AT&T engineer that AT&T hoovers up EVERYTHING and passes it on.

The lower court should have let it go to trial on that basis. Requiring victims to prove they suffered harm when the evidence is in possession of the perp was, I believe, the reason why the Nacht Und Nebel program was so successful. When the government is the criminal, where do you turn?

[scytherius]

24. Good news in a bad situation

The GOOD news out of this, and yeah I know it sucks, is that they didn't rule on the issue they merely declined to hear it. What that means is that no case law was made at the SCOTUS lvl so, hopefully, once the Nazis on the Court are replaced, a future more reasonable court will not be faced with having to overrule an earlier SCOTUS decision. I am actually quite surprised the number of times this is happening where this court could make some horrific case law but is not and is just refusing to hear cases. Like I said, could be worse for sure.

[BearSquirrel2]

25. Jurist Predesitnation Amendment ...

In light of the jurist malfeasence, I think we need a constitutional amendment against situations where cases are denied access to litigation based on the justices denying the suit.

You see, this is EXACTLY the same situation as Bush v. Gore. In that case, it was ruled that there was no recount so they could not proceed with a recount. Of course, the actions of the jurists prevented the recount from proceeding. In this case, discovery would reveal whether the plantiffs are actually being spied upon and would eliminate ineligible plantiffs. Instead of allowing discovery to proceed, the court is just blinding the entire process by saying there is no way to know.

In both cases, the jurists themselves are causing the exact bottlenecks that they are ruling upon as evidence of not allowing the case to proceed. Using the logic of these judges, we could dissmiss ANY case from the dockets by claiming the plantiffs have no ability to prove their case because it has not been proven. End of case and forget the actual proceedings that would determine the validity of the claim.


Note however that the defeat of this case is exactly why the Bush administration wants immunity for the telecoms. When suing telecoms, the records of whose records were released may not be so easy to stonewall. What we will likely find out that this is not isolated, it's probably a wholesale KGB style operation. Discovering this is EXACTLY what the Bush administration wants to hide as well as our chickenshit "Democrat Leadership" that went along with it ... Hillary anyone?

[yellerpup]

26. After B *** & Cheney are convicted of war crimes

and after the truth of the stolen elections of 2000 & 2004 come out, is there any way to toss Bush's appointees out of the SCOTUS? Seems there ought to be a way...if there is such a thing as justice in this country.

[Thothmes]

63. No, there is not

They were duly appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate as per the Constitution. The only way get them out is for them to resign, die or impeachment. Doubt that any will resign, most are relatively young and judicial decisions in and of them selves are not subject to impeachment. Afraid we are stuck with those guys for several more years to come. The real shame is that the next two justices likely to resign or die are Justice Ginsberg and Justice Stevens. Both liberal in the judicial temperament. So the balance of the court will not substantially change even if the incoming Democratic President gets to nominate their replacements.

[yellerpup]

64. If Cheney gets impeached maybe his relationship with Alito

will reveal something impeachable for both of them. Fingers crossed.

[krispos42]

27. So, let's be clear here

Under this current system, the executive branch can gather up all the information they want, either directly from their own sources or indirectly by conspiring with the telecoms.

They can use this information in any analysis system they want to, sorting people onto various "lists", tracking opinions and movements and spending and who you talk to.

And as long as they don't use this information in a court of law, they can slap "national security" over it. And as long as they can slap "national security" over it, you can't know who in particular, or how, or when, or why, they watched anybody. And thus, cannot sue them, because of National Security.

Which means that the government can't officially stop anybody, because that would mean a trial. So they have to unofficially stop people. With no accountability to the people or the law.



How is this different from fascism or communism again?

[Leopolds Ghost]

30. What I've been saying.

Hitler opened everyone's mail. The public knew about it, but did not mind because they knew only the "bad guys" had anything worth looking into by the Gestapo. How is phone and e-mail different from mail? Note that they didn't have the technology to monitor every phone call in the 40's... they had to target someone first, then listen in. That's why 1984 was considered science fiction. Until recently it was said to be impossible to have a total surveillance society, because half the country would have to spy on the other half. computers weren't good enough to do the job yet.

[DCKit]

32. ONE whistleblower with ONE sheet of names and a credible story...

is all we need to stop the Supreme's cover-up.

[Divine Discontent]

33. Ahemmmmm...

well that's a BIG OL F-U to the United States Citizenry!

Wanna spy on your citizens in complete and total fashion????

GO RIGHT AHEAD! We see nothing wrong there...

[Divine Discontent]

34. Come on DUers - every kick & rec this to a huge amount! this is HORRIBLE news by a corrupt govt n/t

[JimboDem]

35. Impeach Scalia

He should be resused, permanently. :mad:

[drmeow]

37. I want to thank everyone

for some very informative and helpful replies to this message.

[Uncle Joe]

39. Wouldn't that get you in trouble with the law if you could prove it?

Isn't that top secret as to how they do it? So it seems to me you would have to break the law to find out if you were being tapped.

[Initech]

40. In other words - move along, nothing to see here.

God damn it, we truly do live in bizarro world. :banghead:

[VP505]

41. " plaintiffs cannot prove their communications have been monitored"

That boys and girls is why we MUST demand that no telecom be given immunity.

[tekisui]

42. Won't even hear it. I am disgusted. What's the recouse?

Who do we turn to now?

I think it is fast approaching that we turn directly to ourselves.

[opusprime]

44. I have a question...

Can a president put more judges on the bench than 9?

In other words, can a President stack the bench with a majority?

I seem to remember reading that FDR did something like this to help get us out of the first Great Depression (our current situation will be the second).

If Obama/Hillary put 6 human being on the bench, they can snuff out the Right wing tools and have a majority.

Just asking if its possible.

[BigDaddy44]

45. Yep

Its possible. Roosevelt tried to do it in the late 30's. Didn't work out too well for him though.

[Thothmes]

62. Even the leaders of the Democratic Party

were against FDR's attempt to alter the number of justices.

[CANDO]

46. Secrecy....prove we spied on you!

eom

[defendandprotect]

47. We're surprised that the Bush's have produced a SC that W in office . . .

and favor a domestic spying program --- ???

These people should be in jail --- !!!

[rox63]

49. Depressing, but not suprising... n/t

[ooglymoogly]

50. The crookedest Supreme Court and justice in the history of the Republic.

and that is all we have for at least the next 10 years. Expect railroadings and crooked rulings at every turn in the justice system until the corruption is weeded out by the honest folks in this country.

[AtomicKitten]

51. They put Little Lord Flauntlroy into power in 2000 and will protect him at all costs.

[otherlander]

52. FUCK!

[DemoTex]

53. The best Supreme Court money can buy! K-Street lobby money.

The fix is in and it works like a charm.

[Raster]

54. Let me guess: the decision was split along party lines, right?

The rethuglican majority voted to reject the challenge, correct?

[happygoluckytoyou]

55. EVERYONE WHO IS SURPRISED TAKE 3 STEPS BACKWARDS

[Danascot]

56. ACLU Press Release

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/34152prs20080219.html

Supreme Court Refuses To Review Warrantless Wiretapping Case (2/19/2008)


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@acluorg; [phone]

Ruling Allows Executive Branch To Police Itself, Says ACLU

NEW YORK – The U.S. Supreme Court today refused to review a legal challenge to the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program. The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of prominent journalists, scholars, attorneys and national nonprofit organizations who say that the unchecked surveillance program is disrupting their ability to communicate effectively with sources and clients. The court’s decision today lets stand an appeals court’s ruling on narrow grounds that plaintiffs could not show with certainty that they had been wiretapped by the National Security Agency.

The following quote can be attributed to Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU’s National Security Project:

“Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act intending to protect the rights of U.S. citizens and residents, and the president systematically broke that law over a period of more than five years. It’s very disturbing that the president’s actions will not be reviewed by the Supreme Court. It shouldn’t be left to executive branch officials alone to determine what limits apply to their own surveillance activities and whether those limits are being honored. Allowing the executive branch to police itself flies in the face of the constitutional system of checks and balances.”

The following quote can be attributed to Steven R. Shapiro, Legal Director of the ACLU:

“Although we are deeply disappointed with the Supreme Court’s refusal to review this case, it is worth noting that today’s action says nothing about the case’s merits and does not suggest in any way an endorsement of the lower court’s decision. The court’s unwillingness to act makes it even more important that Congress insist on legislative safeguards that will protect civil liberties without jeopardizing national security.”

[santamargarita]

57. Right-Wing Assholes - Bush Suckers!

Get these fascist pigs out of OUR country! Move to Iran - just GET OUT!

[McCamy Taylor]

58. Court has a point. The next DOJ will have to take over.

[katty]

59. The Supremes at it again

[Support the ACLU]

61. What a load of crap! The Supreme Court will be fucked up for a generation...

[octobit]

65. This is very unfortunate.

I just wanted to take this opportunity to remind everyone that presidential campaigns are not the only things in need of donations at this time. Also, it's very satisfying to be a card-carrying member of the ACLU.

[primavera]

66. Notice the "no comment" bit?

You ever notice how the reich-wingers on the court normally seize every available opportunity to spout their conservative ideology, except when they know they're contradicting themselves for political reasons, at which point they have "no comment"? They did the same thing in Bush v. Gore: they did a complete 180 from every position they'd ever taken on states' rights, with not so much as a single word of explanation being offered.