Obama Admin - Supreme Court Lacks Authority to Hear NSA Privacy Case

Riffrafter
reply to post by elouina

 

I think this is a case of legal maneuvering (pun definitely intended).

Why deal with an issue if you can legally wiggle out of doing so? Nothing ventured, nothing gained and it is the way almost all lawyers think.

This one bears watching because if the Supreme's decide not to hear it ON THAT BASIS then that clearly says that those that make the laws are above the law - i.e. this country as we knew it no longer exists and it will most definitely be time for pitchforks & torches...

edit on 10/19/2013 by Riffrafter because: (no reason given)

The time for lament, and not revolt is upon us.
The open and blatant pronouncement that the Supreme Court "should not hear" by any other entity is in fact a proclamation of (insert constitutional expletive here).

Welcome home: it is now a four lettered and inescapable description.

AthlonSavage
If the supreme court doesn't have jurisdiction then who the hell does, small handful of guys in dark lit room somewhere can only be privy to the information. Why does the NSA remind me of Nazi Germany? does anyone else get this impression?

I'm not only bookmarking this thread, but explaining it to everyone I know and meet. This far transcends any overstepping of the tattered Constitution by any admisistration in our history. There's no excuse now... you know as many others where we are.

abecedarian

links234
The people bringing the issue to the court are argued that they don't have standing because

The Patriot Act of 2001 only allows challenges from businesses that receive government orders to turn over business records or from the U.S. government.

They also didn't bother going through the lower courts and went straight to the Supreme Court.

To be completely honest, I don't think the SCOTUS will hear the argument. Not because they're secret tyrannical monsters under the bed, but because they will probably agree with the DOJ that, under the law, the party has no jurisdiction.

More info here and here.

Funny thing is, SCOTUS has jurisdiction over EVERY law Congress passes and the Executive signs... according to the Constitution.

They could overturn the provision of the 'law' that limits the scope of who has the right to challenge the law and thus nullify that part of the law, and if there's an 'all-or-none' clause in the law, the entire law can be overturned thus rendering it entirely null-and-void.

And the guy in charge is a Constitutional "scholar"?
Where's my Crayons- I'm gonna make a few amendments.

edit on 10/19/2013 by abecedarian because: (no reason given)

It's quite clear now who the professed law is, and not what.
A second line is futile... so is argument.

reply to post by derfreebie


Just wait until everyone wakes up in the morning and sees this. Sorry for peeing in your Wheaties folks.

bjax9er
It's way past time for a article 5 convention.
Start lobbying your states legislatures.
Washington will never reform itself, we must do it for them.

If it has been codified that dissent is treason, the republic is already lost.

I don't think that took up two lines, death screams usually don't require it.

elouina
reply to post by derfreebie

 

Just wait until everyone wakes up in the morning and sees this. Sorry for peeing in your Wheaties folks.

Repeating the excerpt from the American Free Press (?) article:

US government attorneys argue that the Supreme Court does not have the jurisdiction to take the case, filed in July by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).

Regardless of any and everything else, if this statement is accurate the AFP should be required to provide the names of the 'government lawyers' so they may be at least properly chastised by a Joint Congressional Judiciary Committee.
It makes me wonder if there is one, were nothing to come as consequence to the argument by those aforementioned.

Finally: how perversely appropriate in this instance is it that a French news agency posted this epic gaffe by our own lawyers? It's the morning, and still so far off the rails I still feel like last night: spending my life at the airport waiting for my boat to come in. This story metaphorically pushed the Queen Mary II for a slow scrape right through the terminal window.

EDIT:: ps elouina, as for relieving yourself on the Sunday breakfast of anyone with a story half this important-- may your water dish never run dry. This country needs vinegar stat!

reply to post by derfreebie


I did submit this news to Drudge so fingers crossed. But it is the weekend and his news is a bit slow to come out over the weekends. Maybe he likes to save the good stuff for when the business folks get up Monday morning? You know I am very pleased to see someone as equally upset as I am about this.

elouina
Oh I have like two more minutes here. I keep trying to tell you all that I have no party affiliation. This is not Republican vs Democrat vs independent. Look at what is happening to our country. Just look!

Come on, can anyone tell me that they agree that our highest court should not be able to hear this case? Groan...

The Patriot Act has to go, it simply must.

I think, at the root of everyone's arguments in this thread, is why most people don't like lawyers.

It's the DoJ's job to say things like this, it's the DoJ's job to defend the government in court.

I agree with the DoJ in this case...not because I believe that we should all be spied on by the NSA, but because, under the law, they're right. If the SCOTUS takes the case I'll publicly, gladly, say I was wrong. I don't think they will though.

reply to post by links234


And it could be the best thing that ever happen to Americas freedom. Exposure of what the NSA, backed by private interest and not just the government are doing with data mining of millions of Americans.

And not is no just the bad people that wants to destroy America and the American way of live and freedom, those has already been attacked by the NSA.

What has happened to our country is clear as a bell by even the simplest standard. Our executive branch has decided that they do not need to follow the rule of law, they have decided they can selectively enforce laws already on the books at their sole discretion.

They also believe they can use presidential mandates to circumvent the supreme law of the United States which is the Constitution and then argue that the SCOTUS does not have authority to rule against their crimes as being unconstitutional.

Being that everything above is true, it would appear that we have a bunch of criminals in the executive branch that need a history lesson. Am I wrong?

imasheep
At 36 years old, I have seen this country change into something out of the Twilight Zone. I'm so beyond mad that I can't even describe it.
Where are all the martyrs like the Unabomber? If someone starts taking out some major players, I believe things will change rather quickly. The time for passive resistance has far since passed. The ONLY thing the Federal Ass Clowns recognize is FEAR. Am I advocating violence? You bet your a** I am.

God...can we please just start the war already!!?? I can't stand most people in this stupid stupid country anymore. It is time to cull the frickin' herd already.

Calm your mind my young padawan. You're not the only one in America seething to a boil in the righteous anger we should all feel about the current direction of our country.

Those that perpetrate these injustices would love nothing more for you and a few buddies to take up arms. They would gun you down in spectacular fashion like cattle into the pen and broadcast it on the evening news probably saying the put down a sleeper cell of domestic terrorists.

The time for violence is not yet here, this can be evidenced on a local, county and state level. There are plenty of people still that hold power, real power that would resist what is happening and there is still time to alter course through non violent channels.

I'm not telling you to go out and vote! That's not gonna work on a federal level but I think the problem with the country is on a federal level, who can hold them to account? We all know they have committed multiple crimes but nobody has merit to press charges. When enough states have had enough, when enough Americans force the hand of their local and state officials, perhaps we can push the issue and when we have done all we can (and we are nowhere close) then and only then do I advocate violence.

links234

They also didn't bother going through the lower courts and went straight to the Supreme Court.

How does That happen in this day and age??? I have always thought that the Supreme Court weighs in once things have gone through the courts. I must be mistaken.

Basically if I understand things, the Government is saying the wrong people have filed this case. If they are trying to tell the SCOTUS that they don't have jurisdiction, then I bet you will see a unanimous vote from them then.

pavil

links234

They also didn't bother going through the lower courts and went straight to the Supreme Court.

How does That happen in this day and age??? I have always thought that the Supreme Court weighs in once things have gone through the courts. I must be mistaken.

Basically if I understand things, the Government is saying the wrong people have filed this case. If they are trying to tell the SCOTUS that they don't have jurisdiction, then I bet you will see a unanimous vote from them then.

No other court in the United States has binding presidents over the executive branch besides the SCOTUS. Any lesser court, can not be acknowledged on a federal level. Is this just under law? Debatable, is it how the country works at present? Yes.

pavil

links234

They also didn't bother going through the lower courts and went straight to the Supreme Court.

How does That happen in this day and age??? I have always thought that the Supreme Court weighs in once things have gone through the courts. I must be mistaken.

You're not mistaken. People have been filing cases against the NSA in lower courts since the Snowden leaks began. This is the only case that is seeking a decision from the SCOTUS now, rather than going through the lower courts first.

Basically if I understand things, the Government is saying the wrong people have filed this case. If they are trying to tell the SCOTUS that they don't have jurisdiction, then I bet you will see a unanimous vote from them then.

I don't want to claim any sort of expertise on the legalese of wants being said by the DoJ but, if I understand it correctly as I'm reading on SCOTUSblog, the SCOTUS doesn't have any say in the matter at this time because the case hasn't been seen by the lower courts.

reply to post by elouina


MORE treasonous tyranny multiplied and gone to seed.

Along with demonic arrogance of the lowest sort.

Narcissism doesn't begin to describe the 'dis-ease' the Destroyer in Chief visits on the Republic. How hideous.

Dear Lord, Please . . . if it at all suits your priorities, may he be taken down several hundred notches until at least his feet touch the ground and he realizes he has to wipe his butt like the rest of us.

Perhaps, Lord, you could persuade him to give it all up and head for Argentina. Providing, of course, a worse creature doesn't take his place.

reply to post by Helious

Woaaa is right... Gasp..... We need to spread the word, call our representatives, get involved with the party we are most comfy with, or even run for office ourselves. Violence is not the way!

elouina
reply to post by Helious

 

Woaaa is right... Gasp..... We need to spread the word, call our representatives, get involved with the party we are most comfy with, or even run for office ourselves. Violence is not the way!

edit on 20-10-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)

Despite what Obama or Bush before him has led Americans to believe. We live by a structured rule of law. That structure is not up for debate as it is mandated by the Constitution. Because they are wiping their ass with it and pretending like it doesn't matter doesn't make it less criminal.

Okay, let's have this case heard in a Russian court, I hear they have a star witness with tons of evidence.

Broadcast LIVE around the world.