Article

2008-02-19 Home Front: WoT

Supreme court won't review Bush domestic spying case

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tu3031 2008-02-19 11:00|| || Front Page|| [6 views ] Top

#1 Obviously, the Supremes did not understand our position.

We'll just have to try again. Louder.

Posted by ACLU 2008-02-19 11:41|| 2008-02-19 11:41|| Front Page Top

#2 ACLU, on the side of America's enemies for 50 years and still going strong!

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2008-02-19 12:09|| 2008-02-19 12:09|| Front Page Top

#3 Could you speak up, Jameel. We're having a little problem with the levels...heh...heh...heh.

Posted by tu3031 2008-02-19 12:27|| 2008-02-19 12:27|| Front Page Top

#4 "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"

Glad to see these A-brains are so up to speed on the whole separationg of powers thingy. If congress passes unconstitutional laws that conflict with his enumerated powers, the Pres. can ignore them

Posted by Alanc 2008-02-19 15:05|| 2008-02-19 15:05|| Front Page Top

#5 My offer for the ACLU still stands... ESAD!

Posted by RD">RD 2008-02-19 16:20|| 2008-02-19 16:20|| Front Page Top

#6 the article goes way too far in implying that SCOTUS denied congressional authority.

The lower court said
"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."

IE the guys who sued had no standing. And SCOTUS left that lower court ruling standing.

What SCOTUS will rule when and if somebody who has actually been harmed and has standing goes to court, is TBD.

Posted by liberalhawk 2008-02-19 16:32|| 2008-02-19 16:32|| Front Page Top

#7 The high court's action means that Bush will be able to disregard whatever legislative eavesdropping restrictions Congress adopts as there will be no meaningful judicial review, the ACLU attorneys said.

Does this mean that Speaker Pelosi's refusal to allow the House to vote on the bill to reauthorize listening in on US<->international phone calls no longer matters?

Posted by trailing wife ">trailing wife 2008-02-19 22:08|| 2008-02-19 22:08|| Front Page Top

23:48 trailing wife
23:40 Anonymoose
23:32 Anonymoose
23:16 Alaska Paul
23:04 www
23:02 Frank G
22:43 OldSpook
22:41 RD
22:36 OldSpook
22:30 OldSpook
22:24 FOTSGreg
22:22 trailing wife
22:18 trailing wife
22:11 trailing wife
22:08 trailing wife
22:05 trailing wife
22:04 Old Patriot
22:04 49 Pan
22:03 trailing wife
22:01 Frank G
21:48 E Brown
21:47 trailing wife
21:47 Redneck Jim
21:42 Steven