Did they have grounds to sue?
A liberal Carter-appointee heard the ACLU case against the NSA surveillance program. Before filing suit, I’m sure the ACLU shopped around for a sympathetic judge. The outcome was no surprise.
Judge Finds NSA Program Unconstitutional
A federal judge decision’s to strike down President Bush’s warrantless surveillance program was the first ruling over its legality, but surely not the last. U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit ruled Thursday that the program violated the rights to free speech and privacy, as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.
Normally, you have to prove that you were hurt somehow before the judge rules in your favor. None of the people who filed suit claim that their own phones were actually tapped, therefore no harm was done to them. This is one of those cases were the judge is making new law and not following the law as written.
Just like the Newdow case, SCOTUS should throw this one out because the plaintiffs had no grounds to file suit.
This post has 6 comments
August 18th, 2006
“None of the people who filed suit claim that their own phones were actually tapped, therefore no harm was done to them.”
Wrong, Jason. Read sections III and VI of the ruling.
“Just like the Newdow case, SCOTUS should throw this one out because the plaintiffs had no grounds to file suit.”
Wrong, Jason. Read section III of the ruling. You will find that your arguments are much stronger if you do not argue from ignorance.
August 18th, 2006
I’m with the defendants on this one. Section III states “Defendants argue that Plaintiffs do not establish their standing.” Exactly what I said. The biased, Carter-appointed judge was obviously going to side with the ACLU so I don’t think anything has been proven concerning these particular plaintiffs. Did this judge even examine any evidence? Did the plaintiffs produce any evidence that their phones had been tapped?
In the end, I think SCOTUS will rule against the plaintiffs. We’ll have to wait until the case gets there. The 6th circuit doesn’t have a reputation for being overturned as much as the 9th circus, but I think this judge will be over-ruled.
August 18th, 2006
“Section III states “Defendants argue that Plaintiffs do not establish their standing.”"
And what does the rest of Section III say, Jason? Did you read that?
“The biased, Carter-appointed judge…”
BZZZZZZZTTTT. You cannot argue on the facts, so you make personal attacks on the judge. Pathetic, and predictable.
“Did this judge even examine any evidence?”
Read the ruling, Jason.
“Did the plaintiffs produce any evidence that their phones had been tapped?”
Unnecessary. Read the ruling, Jason.
August 18th, 2006
The judges bias is obvious when she states, “There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution.” So who’s calling who names?
I don’t have time to read the entire ruling. In a court of law it is necessary to produce evidence. That’s why this ruling will be overturned.
August 18th, 2006
“So who’s calling who names?”
Do you read what you write before you hit the ‘publish’ button, Jason? You are calling the judge names. The judge is making statements of fact.
“I don’t have time to read the entire ruling. In a court of law it is necessary to produce evidence.”
And to make a rational argument, it is necessary to know the facts of the matter. You just admitted that you don’t know the facts. You are arguing from ignorance.
August 19th, 2006
I’m not a lawyer, but I waded through as much of the ruling as I can stand. Everything I’ve read convices me of these facts: