Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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 ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site