BREAKING NEWS: Supreme Court rejects ACLU domestic spying lawsuit

[L. Coyote]

This is how State Secrecy combined with Politization of the Department of Justice "works"!
You cannot prove your rights are trampled because trampling your rights is a state secret!

SIMPLE enough for everyone to understand? Better be,
because we can't do anything about it, short of IMPEACHMENT!

==============
BREAKING NEWS: Supreme Court rejects ACLU domestic spying lawsuit

Top court rejects ACLU domestic spying lawsuit
Supreme Court decision doesn't explain reason for turning down appeal
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23235602/
8:10 a.m. MT, Tues., Feb. 19, 2008

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.

...............

[flor de jasmim]

1. IMPEACH - yesterday and often

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. It was the only real alternative, until Pelosi got in the way.

[pingzing58]

37. Pelosi is an obstructionist and needs to be removed from office. When and how, I'll contribute to

her opponents campaign. Please, please let me know.

[Le Taz Hot]

57. There is a Democratic contender.

Iirc, she's in CA District 8. I'm sure her opponent would appreciate the contributions.

[madokie]

12. quickly as possible

[shenmue]

56. It was never that popular in Congress to begin with.

Hate to remind you, but many of them probably remember how the impeachment attempts of the 1990s brought the country to a halt. Given that Bush is a lame duck, they don't want to cause another train wreck when he's going to go away on his own. If you wanted to bring criminal or civil charges against him, you would have to do that in a court outside of the Congress, anyway, such as a state or federal court. Impeachment only removes him from office. In and of itself, it doesn't solve the problem you're trying to address.

[L. Coyote]

20. Right on. LOL! Welcome to DU!

[robinlynne]

2. It is getting scary.

[wtmusic]

3. And why can't they prove their communications have been monitored?

(Sorry, that's classified.)

Here we go, hold on tight.

[Sanity Claws]

4. Better for the Supremes to decline the appeal than to

issue a bad decision and opinion.
The appellate decision still standing is only one court of appeals. Perhaps the ACLU or someone else can pursue the matter in a different circuit.

[cascadiance]

14. Did they actually "reject' the appeal, or just not hear the case?...

If it was the latter, then perhaps that leaves the door more open. It would be nice to hear what the vote breakdown was. You usually don't hear what the vote breakdown is if they don't agree to hear the case.

That's frustrating though, because it should only take 4 justices to want to hear a case. That was what was frustrating about the ruling against Sibel Edmonds too. It would have just taken the four "reasonable" justices to vote to hear it for it to be heard, and all of them didn't vote for hearing it in that case.

[WillowTree]

29. They didn't rule.

They declined to hear the case.

[cureautismnow]

35. Too bad they didn't decline Bush v Gore. n/t

[shance]

63. Of course they cannot prove they've been monitored. Thats the whole reason for the Patriot Act

and its disregard for any standing laws.

Its actually much more than "spying".

The invasive procedures being quietly implemented like neighborhood recruitment of spies and infiltration of groups is alive and well and essentially dismantles any effective opposition to those abusing their power and privilege in the name of the Patriot Act, Domestic spying or Homeland Security. It is all about disempowering us and giving them total control.

Frankly, I've heard many say the ACLU has been marginalized by those who have taken over its ranks and that it is not truly addressing this issue more than it is placating to ensure their contributions don't dry up.

It would seem to me that those who believe they are being spied upon and at least have enough documented evidence to create a legitimate argument need to come together and begin speaking out more.

There needs to be more speaking out by all of us, particularly those who know they have been targeted and are being targeted.

[bdamomma]

5. oh this does not sound good at all.

[flor de jasmim]

7. Good time to stop bickering and keep our eyes focused on the here and now...

and organize. What can we do? Any lawyers out there?

[Thepricebreaker]

9. .... Nothing - who left to appeal to? no one.. n/t

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

27. *shrug* I thought sure the supremes would take up the constitutionality.

I wonder what the outcome of the suit against the telecoms will be.

One thing is for sure, if the legislature fails to strengthen laws protecting our rights, this administration will apparently roll all over them without any consequence because of its regular assertion of 'state secrets' (which is total bullshit IMHO).

:shrug:

[jellybeancurse]

44. I think the issue is the ACLU doesn't have standing

and can't sue on the merits.

Since they cannot prove they personally were spied on, they can't sue.

[derby378]

6. Oh, good Lord...

The classic Catch-22. You can't sue because you can't prove your lines were tapped, and you can't prove your lines were tapped because you can't sue.

[L. Coyote]

22. More like Catch-1984! Where needed, interject "State Secrecy." I call it the "SS Defense"

It is rather like the King having God on his side. If all else fails, God said to do it.

We have separation of Church and State, so there went the "God Defense!" :rofl:

What's left, the State Defense, grounded in the delusion that there is a "state" rather than people keeping secrets and accountable to laws.

Now, is the "State" God, the unquestionable authority? That's far worse than ordinary fascism!

[marmar]

10. The '80s classic by After the Fire says it best:

Zwei drei vier one two three
Its easy to see
But its not that I don't care so
Cause I hear it all the time
But they never let you know
On the TV and the radio
She was young her heart was pure
But every night is bright she got
She said sugar is sweet
She come rappin' to the beat
Then I knew that she was hot

She was singin
Don't turn around, oh oh
Der Kommissar's in town, oh oh
You're in his eye
And you'll know why
The more you live
The faster you will die

Alles klar, Herr Kommissar?

She said babe you know
I miss Jill and Joe
And all my funky friends
But my street understanding
was just enough to know what she really meant
And I got to thinking while she was talking
That I know she told the story
Of those special places that she goes
When she rides with the others in the subway

Singin'
Don't turn around, oh oh
Der Kommissar's in town, oh oh
And if he talks to you
And you don't know why
You say your life
Is gonna make you die...

Alles klar, Herr Kommissar?

Well we meet Jill and Joe
And brother Herr
And the whole cool gang (and oh)
They're rappin' here they're rappin' there
But she's climbin' on the wall
Its a clear case, Herr Kommissar
Cause all the children know
They're all slidin' down into the valley
They're all slipping on the same snow

Hear the children
Don't turn around, oh oh
Der Kommissar's in town, oh oh
He's got the power
And you're so weak
And you're frustration will not let you speak

Don't turn around, oh oh
Der Kommissar's in town, oh oh
And if he talks to you
Then you'll know why
The more you live
The faster you will die

Don't turn around, oh oh
Der Kommissar's in town, oh oh

[ThomWV]

11. That's OK, there are plenty more standing in line.

And some of them do in fact have proof they were spied on - so they have standing - so they will go forward.

[endarkenment]

13. BREAKING NEWS: Supreme Court rejects Constitution!

This court is going down in history as the worst court ever. Thank you Joe Lieberman and the gang of 14 for putting these fascist bastards in power. Boy oh boy it sure is a good thing they didn't use the NUKULAR OPTION.

[Old and In the Way]

15. The Bush Firewall.

When it's a Democratic President using these same wiretapping laws next year to find out what internet sites and phone conversations these Republican SC justices are engaging with...lets see how quick they revert back to Constitutional principles. No wonder why Bush doesn't have to worry about the crimes he has committed...he's got the ultimate "get out of jail free" card to play.

[spanone]

16. the terrorists have no idea how big they won in 2001

[death to the DLC]

18. Exactly, yet another talking point

the Dems will not use, oh, that's right, most of them voted for the Patriot Act, another al-q victory. Talking point dead in the water.

[acmavm]

53. You're blaming the WRONG 'terraists'. This country's real threat was

put in the White House by the same people who won't hear petitions regarding their crimes. Why should they? They're all the same.

[cascadiance]

17. Sounds like we need to also start building some cases for SCOTUS iimpeachments as well...

for obstructing justice, which they've done at least in both this case and in Sibel Edmonds' appeal, if and when we can ultimately prove they've been help hiding the crimes of this administration.

SCOTUS during Nixon's time knew when they couldn't pull these sorts of cards and heavily ruled against Nixon's claim for executive privilege. By contrast this court doesn't seem to "get it" that we ought to be able to impeach them for this sort of ruling too, which in some ways is more risky for the right wing in power down the road than impeaching Bushco is by itself. They just must feel they are protected by the complicit Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid DLC lead congress!

[Thepricebreaker]

42. We couldnt get a janitor impeached during an election season... sad but true.

[MessiahRp]

47. I agree... which one goes first Alito, Roberts or that fucker Scalia?

Damn I hate the state of our country.

Rp

[spanone]

19. kicked and Nominated

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. Why am I reminded of GERMANY in the 1930s all over again?

oh never mind... we are not nazis or fascists... so stop saying that

[intheflow]

23. Is the Supreme Court actually doing any work?

They're rejecting this case, they rejected Katrina survivors' home insurance claims. WTF are they doing for their tax dollar salaries? :grr:

[B Calm]

24. and abortion is still legal..

ha ha

[L. Coyote]

25. TPM: Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Warrantless Wiretapping Appeal

With award-winning clarity, as usual, TPM cuts to the issues.

====================
Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Warrantless Wiretapping Appeal
By Paul Kiel - February 19, 2008 - http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/supreme_court_refuses_to_hear.php


....... 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the suit, saying the plaintiffs could not prove their communications had been monitored.

There are still a number of suits ongoing. But the hurdle in this case and most others challenging the program is a high one -- the court has refused to hear the lawsuit because the journalists, scholars, attorneys and national advocacy groups that filed the lawsuit can't prove that they were wiretapped under the program. Of course, that information is secret, and the government refuses to say.

Not all judges have found that to be a problem. For instance, district Judge Anna Diggs Taylor issued an injunction shutting down the program in August, 2006 -- and proclaimed in her opinion that "It was never the intent of the Framers to give the President such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights." An appeals court dismissed the suit last July, citing the lack of standing.

This suit was against the National Security Agency itself, not against the telecoms. Those suits are ongoing -- for now......

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

30. Isn't the fact that the government CAN wiretap w/o oversight damage enough to be,...

,...unconstitutional?

Of course, the SCOTUS simply avoided ruling, at all, on that question but allowed the appeals decision stand which is total BS.

I think the legislature should do two things: enact legislation strictly protecting our rights and engage in a full-frontal investigation into whether or not the FISA law has been violated including taking this administration to court via an immediate injunction until the issue can be resolved!

[Time for change]

26. Do we know which scumbuckets rejected this?

[Danascot]

28. 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.”

[MasonJar]

31. Our good ole boys at the Supreme Court! Is anyone really surprised?

[MasonJar]

32. Now it is time to impeach Scalia and his two or three minions.

[katty]

33. deMockracy in action

[Joanne98]

34. They can be impeached!

[Thothmes]

38. Yes

for treason, bribery, other high crimes & misdemeanors. This is what is specified in the Constitution. I do not think a justice can be impeached for a judicial decision by itself. If some could prove that a justice made some gain from a decision, then I think that they can be impeached.

[L. Coyote]

41. treason, bribery, other high crimes & misdemeanors

Any two or more conspiring to install Bush would qualify, right?

[cascadiance]

48. I think obstruction of justice, if it is shown they are trying to prevent prosecutions/impeachment

through selective refusal to hear certain cases, or ruling in favor of executive privilege when not appropriate.

They should have access to the secret information. If it is found that they were trying to cover up wrongdoing, and not really trying to protect things like "state secrets", then I think they should be impeached. This case as well as Sibel Edmonds' case might serve as examples here.

I think that's why SCOTUS refused to give Nixon safe haven of executive privilege in the Watergate era. I think they knew that they might be subject to impeachment if they stood in the way. I think it was a unanimous or near unanimous decision not to support executive privilege.

[L. Coyote]

62. No political crime would surprise me any more, including a conspiracy of Supremes

it alter the course of US history with a short cut, with the ends justifying criminal means.

We have seen too much criminality from the R gang to expect anything different from their Judiciary players.

[Moochy]

49. They Must Be

[IsItJustMe]

36. Freedom isn't free: Seems to have a new meaing now in America.

[MindMatter]

39. How many Justices could President Oama appoint realistically?

I assume that several of the moderate Justices have been taking their vitamins so as not to give Bush any more opportunities. Some of them would probably retire early on if Obama gets elected.

And if I can assume an 8 year Presidency for Obama (for sake of argument), the actuarial tables would surely catch up with one or two of the devils on the bench.

Could he appoint 5 Justices in 8 years?

Will at least two of the worst 4 (Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts) either croak or retire within 8 years?

[Kitty Herder]

51. Not likely that the four worst will die or retire soon.

Alito, Thomas and Roberts are in their fifties. Scalia is 71, which isn't really that old for a supreme court justice.

The next president will most likely appoint at least one justice because Stevens is 87 and deserves to retire.

Maybe we'll be lucky and all four will be caught in bed together doing nasty things, and will be forced to resign. Oh, that was an ugly, ugly thought. I wish I hadn't had it. :puke:

[MindMatter]

54. If all 4 of them were caught in bed

They would issue a new ruling, for the present circumstances only, that 4 justices lying in bed together doing nasty things, is actually just find and America should just go about their business and let us take care of matters.

Remember that the so-called "left leaning" Justices are hardly progressive. We could make an improvement in the center of gravity of the Court if Obama got an opportunity to replace just about any of them. Let's say that one of the evil onces croaks abd 3 of the sane ones retire or die. An Obama Presidency together with a solid Dem Senate would pull the court back from the far right wing stance of today.

And that might just be enough to convince morons like Scalia and Thomas to find something else to do with the rest of their lives. 'course, it rather see them both croak. Is there a God out there?

[Blue_Tires]

40. just sent the aclu a donation last night....

they will not give up the fight

[L. Coyote]

61. Right on!!

[Voltaire99]

43. No surprise: the Court has a tradition of trampling civil liberties during "wartime"

The controlling metaphor is wartime, which is entirely up to the executive to decree (but requires the concupiscence of the culture to exist).

The "war on terror," and Iraq and Afghanistan in particular, will give whatever despot occupies the White House the ability to distort much of our civic life. And the Supreme Court won't interfere any more than it did in the 20th century.

Sorry, but while so-called "defense Democrats" beat their breasts about "making America stronger," you'll get the same repressive shit under a Dem as under the GOP. That's life under empire, folks.

[Webster Green]

45. The U.S. Supreme W. Court....What a disgraceful bunch of fascist pigs

Time to impeach the useless chimp-lickers!:puke:

[Support the ACLU]

46. Unbelievable!

[ChazII]

50. No comment???

Unbelievable .

[Kitty Herder]

52. I really wish those rightwing thugs on the court could be shown the door,

but is it at all realistic to think they would ever be impeached?

[vickitulsa]

55. I heard a good discussion of this on NPR a day or two ago.

The "expert" guest responded to questions by saying that indeed the SC was using what amounted to the ultimate Catch 22: Can't prove you were wiretapped illegally without access to documents which you can't see because of "national security" concerns. It's complete BS of course.

In fact, it's a circle-jerk mirage of "justice," which I don't think we've had in this country for a very long time already. The illegal wire-tapping business just seems to have awakened a lot of people to how little privacy we have, and now the SC reveals how little recourse any of us have in this, our "free" nation.

Even when the SC has ruled against BushCo, he has simply IGNORED the ruling and continued on his merry way doing whatever he damn well pleases. This is how he has chosen to handle any legal challenges -- and it's working beautifully for him and those who control him. I have little doubt this is a Cheney suggestion.

It's all just for show, now, folks, and we are indeed screwn.

[Somawas]

58. The Supreme Court is the reason that I will

hold my nose, grit my teeth and vote for Hillary, if she is nominated.

[lonestarnot]

59. That Unitary Executive must be more important than the Constitution.

hmmmmmf!

[paparush]

60. Meet my good friend Major Major Major

Would laugh if this wasn't so fucking sad and infuriating.

[lonestarnot]

64. Guess we lack standing on the American dream, eating food that hasn't been poisoned or tortured, and

ending the fucking war too.