General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Transcript of the Edward Snowden portion of my show this week [View all]JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)These website links will inform you about the kinds of arguments that lawyers will present in order to persuade the Supreme Court that, in spite of past rulings, the situation, the facts that now exist require it to rule that the NSA surveillance is unconstitutional.
The point of bringing cases to the Supreme Court is to bring the Court to realize that a new situation requires a new ruling. I wish the Electronic Frontier Foundation good luck in the cases they are bringing to force the NSA to end the domestic surveillance.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/06/top-5-claims-defenders-nsa-have-stop-making-remain-credible
https://www.eff.org/cases/first-unitarian-church-los-angeles-v-nsa
If past decisions of the Supreme Court told the whole story about what is correct law and what is not, we could retire the members of the Supreme Court -- just turn them out to pasture. They would have nothing to do. I know all about the old cases you cite. The point is we have new facts, and those old cases have not yet been found to apply.
Did you read the law journal article I cited in my previous post. It's very interesting.