Skip to main content

View Diary: When SCOTUS Rules in Favor of the NSA, Will You Call for Impeachment Then? (233 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Um... the President (5+ / 0-)

    actually approved this already. Not the SCOTUS. You want to impeach him too? On yeah, and the congress?

    •  This isn't the issue I'd be seeking their (0+ / 0-)

      impeachment over.  I was simply asking whether folks who have really put a lot of effort and passion into the NSA issue would consider standing against the Supreme Court if it gave color of law to the total negation of the 4th Amendment.

      Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

      by Troubadour on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 04:54:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, Villanova Rhodes

        I it is indeed found to be constitutional- and there are a lot of scholars who think that it is- why would you want to impeach them? Just because you and a lot of others disagree? And that issue is light years away from the court anyway. A quicker method would be straight to the top. It isn't a total negation of the 4th amendment. But if you feel that strongly why give the President a pass? They didn't come up with the idea. Or lie about it.

        •  The question is, do you think it's constitutional? (0+ / 0-)

          The Constitution is a social contract to which you are a party, so your opinion matters.  

          And here's the problem with saying "If it is indeed found to be constitutional."  Just because a court issues a ruling does not necessarily mean anything has been "found" to be anything.  If SCOTUS ruled 5-4 that up is down, that does not mean that up has been "found" to be down.  So if they just issued a totally arbitrary ruling, how does that have legitimacy?

          But if you feel that strongly why give the President a pass? They didn't come up with the idea. Or lie about it.
          I don't feel that strongly on the NSA subject - I'm bringing it up mainly as an attempt to broaden the range of issues that might interest various constituencies.

          Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

          by Troubadour on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 05:07:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I can see it (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib

            under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. As confirmed by the rulings of multiple Supreme Court cases, the NSA has the ability to gain access to phone records, email records and other basic information.

            This information is already given to third party companies such as phone and Internet service providers. This precedent, set by these third parties, allowed the SCOTUS to give access to law enforcement officials (e.g. Smith v. Maryland).

            The information, however, may not be accessed without following the respective legislative guidelines. When organizations such as the NSA receive information of suspicion, but not enough to justify probable cause, they may submit an affidavit to either a judge or a grand jury.

            So what you seem to say is your opinion on this matter is superior to the (constitutional) means the nation adjudicates these disputes?

            •  Then your position is legitimate because (0+ / 0-)

              you personally do not think your rights are being violated under the Constitution.  It would only be dubious if you thought otherwise but then edited your own opinion to copy whatever SCOTUS says.

              So what you seem to say is your opinion on this matter is superior to the (constitutional) means the nation adjudicates these disputes?
              Not everything is an opinion, first of all.  The facts about the behavior of this Court establish a pattern of partisan rulings targeted at determining the outcome of elections in advance in favor of one Party, and that is not a legitimate action of a judicial body no matter how you slice it.

              Secondly, since I am an individual human being with my own mind and am party to the constitutional social contract, my views are certainly more important in determining what policies and political activities I support than the arbitrary rulings of some body that lacks even explicit authority under the Constitution.  Especially when those rulings are not grounded in law but rather seek to replace the law with raw partisan power.

              Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

              by Troubadour on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 05:52:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Again your opinions (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                terrypinder

                are strong, but that is all they are. And again, I do abide by the laws and rulings of the court. They are legit.

                he facts about the behavior of this Court establish a pattern of partisan rulings targeted at determining the outcome of elections in advance in favor of one Party, and that is not a legitimate action of a judicial body no matter how you slice it.
                Huh?
                •  Again, not everything is an opinion. (0+ / 0-)

                  What I said in the quoted text was that the Court is not operating as a court of law, but a court of arbitrary partisan power in defiance of law.  It refuses to even be bound by its own logic, deciding one thing one day when it's convenient for the GOP, then the exact opposite the next day when it isn't.  One set of legal standards for cases where the GOP or its related organs is the defendant, another set for when they are the plaintiff.

                  Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

                  by Troubadour on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 06:54:52 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Please (0+ / 0-)

                    This is just your opinion. You are entitled to it but it is a bit over the top.
                    "the Court is not operating as a court of law"

                    •  Again, not everything is an opinion. (0+ / 0-)

                      And just because you say it's an opinion doesn't make it so.  I can say the Roberts Five is not operating as a court of law because their actions can be cited to justify the claim.  You, however, can only just keep repeating "that's an opinion" like some sort of magic mantra against the evidence.  What possible motivation can a liberal progressive have to so bend logic and reality in defense of the people responsible for so many politically-authored disasters in this country?

                      Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

                      by Troubadour on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 09:17:07 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

      •  but but but (0+ / 0-)
        This isn't the issue I'd be seeking their impeachment over.
        aren't they sworn to defend and protect the Constitution?

        Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

        by corvo on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 05:04:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Shhhh (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib

      Troubador's point is that you're hypocritical for supporting A but not B, while you think he's hypocritical for supporting B but not A.  It's a stupid argument, but it's not worth starting a fight over.

      Read his other recent SCOTUS diaries, they're better.

      The Constitution is a suicide pact.

      by happymisanthropy on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 04:59:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not trying to engage in namecalling here. (0+ / 0-)

        I'm just saying that for an issue subculture that has taken to occasionally equating Obama with Hitler and NSA spying with holocaust gas chambers, that maybe it's a bit ludicrous to stop short of saying that a Supreme Court Justice who sustains NSA domestic spying might be issuing a lawless verdict.

        Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

        by Troubadour on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 05:43:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Valar Morghulis

          That "a Supreme Court Justice who sustains NSA domestic spying" hasn't occurred. And if it did it would be born from the President's policies and congressional blessings. Your rants on the SC about issues they have no bearing upon are quite puzzling to me.

          •  You're confused. (0+ / 0-)
            And if it did it would be born from the President's policies and congressional blessings.
            The Voting Rights Act as written had explicit Constitutional, Congressional, and Presidential backing.  That didn't stop the Roberts Five from gutting it.  So if they sustain NRA domestic spying in total without reservation, where will be your excuse then?

            Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

            by Troubadour on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 09:15:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I was referring to (0+ / 0-)

              the NSA spying. Not the VRA. I keep getting confused on your antagonism to the SC is it the VRA decisions? DOMA? And what does any of this have to do with Obama's spying?

              •  Four of the five used the exact opposite rationale (0+ / 0-)

                to vote against striking down DOMA.  Their position on that case only further proves their VRA ruling was illegitimate.

                Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

                by Troubadour on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 02:29:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well you can see it several ways (0+ / 0-)

                  The reasoning in both decisions was some variation on "times have changed".

                  They said:

                  “Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in [Section] 2. We issue no holding on [Section] 5 itself, only on the coverage formula. Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions.”

                  Remember, both laws were approved by Congress with large, bipartisan majorities. So if you think the courts should defer to the elected branches, it’s a high hurdle to support either decision. In both cases, the idea behind nullification seems to be that the passage of time has rendered the relevant sections unconstitutional, even though they were (or seemed to be) constitutional when passed: On VRA, it makes no sense to penalize states and localities based on 40-year-old statistics, and on DOMA . . . well, we’ve all learned a lot about homosexuality in the last couple of decades.

                  Roberts cites traditions and interpretations that suggest all states should be treated the same; but the whole point of the original VRA was to treat states differently based on their histories — and if 30 years was not enough to get the job done but 40 years is, shouldn’t that finely calibrated decision be made by Congress (which the Fifteenth Amendment explicitly gives the authority to enforce voting rights)?

                  As a VRA supporter I might say, for example, that we need to wait until most of the people who grew up under Jim Crow are gone, which I can understand that some consider incorrect but at least it is debatable. (If you point out that black turnout exceeds white in many areas, the reply might be: “See? It works!”)

                  So ultimately is it the Supreme Court’s job to weigh in on political questions like this? Or, if it is OK for the Supreme Court to decide that this argument is too weak to accept, why shouldn’t it also be able to decide that in the 21st century, defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman in order to reinforce the mental association between sex, marriage, and procreation is also too weak?

                  This to me is not some clear and cut case of partisanship but competing interpretations of subjective laws.

                  But once again why is all this relevant to spying on Americans by this administration which is where I chimed in?

                  •  You make some reasonable points (0+ / 0-)

                    but most of what I'm hearing seems to support the point that I'm making - that the VRA ruling was not legitimate.  As to DOMA, they used the exact opposite rationale to defend, but the main reason why it was legitimately struck down is that the only reason for it was to discriminate against and marginalize people, for which there is no explicit Constitutional authority.

                    Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

                    by Troubadour on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 03:58:49 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Well we (0+ / 0-)

                      and many others can disagree but it doesn't delegitimize the court nor their opinions. It happens all the time. And that (inflicts an “injury and indignity” on gay couples) isn't the only reason in play as there were also concerns with the initiative process and federalism in the DOMA decision. And that wasn't the issue with VRA. If the VRA decision was not legit- according to you- why was the DOMA decision legit?

                      And let's not forget the Democrats who were behind DOMA which included Chuck Schumer, Pat Leahy, Harry Reid, Joe Biden, and the president who signed it into law, Bill Clinton. And of course until yesterday Obama himself opposed gay marriage. You obviously feel very passionate about the issue(s?) but I think your intensity on a single issue has spread to other unrelated aspects of the judiciary.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site