Wonder if any of the Supremes use Verizon or others cooperating with the NSA?

[snot]

I hope the ACLU presents examples of the kinds of inferences that an expert can draw about a person based on 7 years'-worth of the kinds of info the NSA has had access to – inferences that could not only be used to pinpoint some alleged "felony" if needed (see http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022987642 : "Boston civil rights lawyer Harvey Silverglate says that everyone in the US commits felonies everyday and if the government takes a dislike to you for any reason, they'll dig in and find a felony you're guilty of. . . . &quot , but that could also be used to influence you without your awareness.

(It might in fact be difficult to find a judge who has not, directly or indirectly, used any of the companies cooperating with the NSA during the last 7 years -- which might mean, it might be difficult to find a judge that doesn't have to recuse her/himself.)

And if a party to the litigation had access to info about the communications and movements of one or more of the judges, might that not under some circumstances be an advantage with respect to persuading that judge?

[AsahinaKimi]

1. The Supremes?

I thought they were pretty well documented?

Sorry, couldn't resist... (Pokes Mr. Scorpio )

[BlueStreak]

2. If they served Verizon, they served ALL the phone companies

Why do people assume that this is limited to Verizon?

What? We think that terrorists only use Verizon phones?

That's ridiculous.

The program will be seen to be far more widespread than that.

[snot]

3. Agreed!

(That's why I said "or others.&quot

Also, even if some companies were not included, their customers surely communicated with customers of Verizon et al. who were.

[BlueStreak]

4. This is a rare issue that does not break on predictable lines

One would expect libertarians to be against a big intrusive government program line this. We have seen Rand Paul take a strong position, but judging from my teabagger friends, they are more in the 'Let's go kick some terrorist ass" mode.

You would think that liberals would be against both the risk of a fascist path that would clamp down on dissent from the left, and also be against the profiteering by all these private companies scrambling to get in on this money pot. Be we see a whole bunch of people here at DU that don't see it that way.

I guess the real authoritarians like McCain and Graham are predictable enough, but they always can be counted on to have the reasoning ability of 3rd graders.

Looking at the Supremes, I think this is a case where Scalia would be against the intrusion, as he was on the recent DNA issue. Anybody who claims to be a Constitutionalist could not possibly support these activities that are so obviously counter to the 4th Amendment. I think the SCOTUS would be against this at least 5-4. We can count on Thomas and Alito to be on the troglodyte side as usual. I would expect Breyer to be in favor of the 4th Amendment, and possibly Kennedy and Roberts too. So that could be a 7-2 majority.

Maybe the ACLU case will get there before too long.

[snot]

5. Here's hoping!