You Have No Right
Since the cretin in chief has violated the laws setting up the FISA court, committed crimes against those surveilled, and violated your privacy and free speech rights given in the constitution, betcha thought he'd have to at least say 'sorry'?
Wrong.
Being reversed means that this case goes back to the judge who decided that the criminals have committed crimes, and he is ordered to make a new finding. I know what my next finding would be, but then I also know it would not be good for any future career. That U.S. District Judge in Michigan who writes this one up may become my hero, or may preserve his standing with the criminals by meek acquiescence.
My finding would begin with "Sadly, I must find that the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is in violation of its constitutional authority...". Okay, I don't have a law degree, that may not work. But I'd try it.
Wrong.
A federal appeals court on Friday ordered the dismissal of a lawsuit challenging President Bush's domestic spying program, saying the plaintiffs had no standing to sue.
The 2-1 ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel was not on the legality of the surveillance program. But it vacated an order by a lower court in Detroit last Augist that the post-911 warrantless surveillance aimed at uncovering terrorist activity was unconstitutional, violating rights to privacy and free speech and the separation of powers.
Being reversed means that this case goes back to the judge who decided that the criminals have committed crimes, and he is ordered to make a new finding. I know what my next finding would be, but then I also know it would not be good for any future career. That U.S. District Judge in Michigan who writes this one up may become my hero, or may preserve his standing with the criminals by meek acquiescence.
My finding would begin with "Sadly, I must find that the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is in violation of its constitutional authority...". Okay, I don't have a law degree, that may not work. But I'd try it.
Labels: Corruption, Patriot Act, The Unitary President
posted by Ruth at 7:47 AM
1 Comments:
One tiny point: the lower court judge Anna Diggs Taylor, is a she, not a he.
More to the point, the really frustrating thing about the circuit court's decision is that it was based on standing. Because the administration has been so secretive about this spying program, nobody (or almost nobody) knows for sure if he or she is someone who has been spied upon.
Which means that practically nobody has standing to walk into the court and say, "I was injured by this program as an individual", and without that, nobody has standing to challenge the law.
You might be saying, "But that can't be right! It can't be that the justice system would actually reward someone for breaking the law and refusing to let anyone know just how badly they've been breaking the law!" And I agree; it doesn't make sense, but it is the law and that's how standing works (it took three separate lawsuits for the Connecticut law that forbade the use of birth control to be addressed substantively by the U.S. Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut, and the first two were kicked out because of lack of standing).
Post a Comment
<< Home