Supreme Court Refuses To Hear EPIC Challenge To NSA Surveillance 227
Trailrunner7 writes "The challenge to the NSA's domestic surveillance program filed with the Supreme Court by the Electronic Privacy Information Center ended Monday, with the court refusing to consider the challenge at all. EPIC had filed the challenge directly with the Supreme Court rather than going through the lower courts. EPIC, a non-profit organization involved in privacy policy matters, had asked the court to vacate an order from a judge in the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Court that had enabled the NSA's collection of hundreds of millions of Verizon call records under the so-called metadata collection program. The challenge hinged on the idea that the FISC had gone outside of its authority in granting the order."
EPIC fail (Score:5, Funny)
Calling China right now (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like we're going to need a reliable supplier of pitchforks soon.
Re:Calling China right now (Score:5, Insightful)
No, what's needed is a source of sound legal advice and strategy. EPIC's strategy was fatally flawed from the beginning. Their failure should have been easily foreseen by just about anyone with a more than passing familiarity with the US legal system. It was a self-frag.
Re: (Score:2)
Since SCOTUS previously denied standing to people because they couldn't prove they had been spied upon, and the Govt is likely to keep asserting State Secrets Privilege, I'm still waiting to hear how the stolen Snowden stuff is going to be enough to get anything else than -at best- a 5-4 rejection.
It's only metadata, those silly Framers forgot to put it as something worth protecting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Calling China right now (Score:5, Informative)
I hate to say it, but you're right. The judicial branch of government runs on precedent and tradition, unless and until it is convenient for them to counter precedent and tradition.
IANAL, but I'm not aware of any cases being taken directly to the Supreme Court like Epic tried to do. Everything runs through the lower courts, even if the Supreme Court is the intended goal.
Re: (Score:3)
IANAL either, nor even an American. But for some reason I figured this quote
The challenge hinged on the idea that the FISC had gone outside of its authority in granting the order.
explains why they went (had to go?) straight to SCOTUS because the special nature, ahem, of the foreign intelligence court places it sort of outside the conventional framework of appeals and so on. Where do you suggest they might otherwise have started?
Re: (Score:2)
You start in the federal court of someone whose information was wrongfully collected. Which is apparently just about anybody.
They will judge whether the government infringed their rights and whoever loses will appeal to a higher court. When that higher court rules it'll get passed up to the next appeal court. As long as a higher court is willing to hear the case it'll keep getting appealed until the SCOTUS lets the ruling stand or hears the case.
Re:Calling China right now (Score:4, Informative)
It isn't a matter of tradition. The US Constitution only allows two types of cases to start at the supreme court:
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction"
This case did not involve the specified people, nor did it involve a state. Therefore it cannot originate in the supreme court.
Re: (Score:3)
This case did not involve the specified people, nor did it involve a state. Therefore it cannot originate in the supreme court.
They should have named the government of a state that had permitted/provided the facilities that surveillance was conducted in.
No, because that would have been stupid. The parties are the NSA and the FISA court, neither is a state.
While the SCOTUS doesn't have original jurisdiction, EPIC's claim is that this is a truly exceptional case and the lower courts have no authority to hear the case, that neither the district courts nor FISA courts are competent to hear the case, that there are no other legal options available for them to get the rights the Constitution requires, and that only the supreme court is qualified to hear it. The
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a lawyer, so maybe that sounds dumb to someone that knows more than I do.
SCOTUS is correcton this, there is a process (Score:3)
You are correct that it was doomed from the beginning, as any court observer would see.
The Constitution is very clear on the matter, so much that even non-lawyers can understand it:
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction"
There are only two kinds of cases that can start at the supreme co
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Oh please, give it up. You've right, any child who's taken a decent civics class would know about the 4A, however the facts that the government has spent billions on spying apparatus and infrastructure, there's a whole federal agency dedicated to violating the 4A, the Executive branch has been complicit in it at all levels with both Republican and Democrat presidents, there's secret courts to rubberstamp all this activity, and Congress refuses to outlaw it, all shows that appealing to the Constitution and
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Calling China right now (Score:5, Interesting)
Uh, I hate to be the one to point out the fucking obvious here, but a "passing familiarity" with the law would be called the Constitution, and more specifically, the Fourth Amendment within that protects every citizen from such bullshit.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Which part of that Amendment specifically mentions the "bullshit" that we're talking about in this discussion?
The framers of the Constitution knew that they could not encompass every conceivable possibility into the document, or into those amendments that were later added. That's why we have courts, who interpret the document, and decide as best they can how to apply it to the issue before them.
So, you have the right to be secure in your "papers", and said right is protected by the 4th Amendment. The question you have to ask yourself is whether or not your papers include metadata stored on Verizon's system? That's a question for the courts, since it's obviously beyond the scope of the Constitution, and when that question has been asked in the past (the relevant precedent involves pen registers) the Courts have been fairly consistent in saying that you forfeited the expectation of privacy when you shared information with a third party, i.e., the phone company.
Now, one may argue that precedent was decided incorrectly and should be reversed. What one can't do (well you can, it's just unproductive) is scream about the 4th Amendment without any in-depth discussion of how that Amendment is interpreted by the courts, how we apply it to modern times with technologies that were unheard of when it was written, and how the case law as evolved over the years as those technologies have been developed.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Correct me if I am wrong but I don't believe that's how your Constitution actually works. It supposedly outlines what the government can do and anything it doesn't say they can do, they can't do. It seems like the confusion comes from having the itemized amendments, which I believe at least one of the founding fathers argued would lead to this common misunderstanding.
Re:Calling China right now (Score:4, Interesting)
Okay, you're wrong.
The government can do whatever it wants until told to stop by someone in a higher position of authority. The only "laws" constraining their actions are the laws of physics. Congress could pass a law tomorrow establishing Zoroastrianism as the state religion, and the Constitution (being just words on a page) wouldn't do shit to stop them. The law would have to be struck down by a court.
Nothing is unconstitutional until a court rules it so.
How else could it possibly work?
Re: (Score:3)
Your understanding is correct. That is why the 9th and 10th amendments were part of the initial round of amendments called the bill of rights.
The 9th tends to limit expansion of government (yet it still grows). The 10th was a restatement of the fact that anything not expressly granted is not part of their power; on its face it is redundant and therefore has often been called unnecessary, but in recent years it has been leveraged as a reminder that the government cannot claim all powers.
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like we're going to need a reliable supplier of pitchforks soon.
Well, they've got pitchchopsticks over there I guess. But that'll do just fine, once you get the hang of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Reliable? Have you ever used a pitchfork made in China?
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/540042213/FORGED_PITCH_FORK_SPADING_FORK_IN.html [alibaba.com]
$6 each, min order 100.
This company claims to be able to supply 10,000 per month which isn't bad. Should we shop around a little more first?
Re:Calling China right now (Score:5, Funny)
With 300 million Americans, minus the top 5% who won't willingly participate, that puts the revolution around the year 4400.
I can't do it on that day, I have a swimming class.
Maybe we have to switch weapons and learn from the Finns about throwing smartphones. The ones without the rounded corners.
Re: (Score:3)
You want manure forks, not spading forks. Luckily they're also available (only 50,000 a year) at alibaba, http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/620578979/manure_fork.html [alibaba.com], handles a little short though, the one I carry in my truck has closer to a six foot handle.
Re: (Score:3)
watcha gonna do, watcha gonna do then there's a noose for you.
No surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
EPIC tried to jump the line - they didn't follow the proper appeals process. That is highly frowned upon by the legal system and rarely succeeds. No surprise in this outcome. And nobody should read anything into it either way. One of the existing or future challenges may succeed as it works its way through the court system.
Re:No surprise (Score:5, Interesting)
Also: Congress is working on this issue. The Supreme Court really doesn't like to step on the toes of the other two parts of the government if it doesn't have to. Looking at the activity on this issue, it's likely they won't have to.
Re:No surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress is working on what exactly? Amending the Constitution? That's what it would take to make any of this generalized warrantless surveillance legal.
Re:No surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought it was obvious, but the majority of congress critters were unaware of how pervasive NSA spying is. A number of them were shocked to learn how powerful NSA has grown. It's not even really clear that the committee members responsible for national security understood.
Some of those shocked congress critters are, indeed, exploring avenues to reign in the intel communities. Ineffectively exploring, for sure, but they are doing what their feeble little minds are capable of.
But, there is a danger here, that we should all be aware of. Any congress critter who makes to much noise may be targeted by the NSA, and quietly blackmailed to shut the hell up. I really don't think the Secret Service can protect a congress person from the NSA and the rest of the intel apparatus. There is really no telling what has happened behind the scenes. Does kristallnacht ring any bells?
Re:No surprise (Score:4, Informative)
There is really no telling what has happened behind the scenes. Does kristallnacht ring any bells?
If you're referring to the murder of anti-Nazis within the German government, I believe you're thinking of the Night of the Long Knives [wikipedia.org], not Kristallnacht. Kristallnacht was a series of very public anti-Jewish riots.
Re: (Score:2)
Kristalnacht lasted for only a couple days, according to the wikipedia, and that incident led to the night of the long knives. For my purpose, that of warning against a possible coup, the two incidents can be rolled together into one larger incident. Ultimately, they led to the state rounding up and killing potential adversaries, and solidifying the government's position as supreme rulers over the people.
Re:No surprise (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was obvious, but the majority of congress critters were unaware of how pervasive NSA spying is. A number of them were shocked to learn how powerful NSA has grown. It's not even really clear that the committee members responsible for national security understood.
I have no idea is they understood or not. Certainly what they say publicly doesn't mean anything either way.
Some of those shocked congress critters are, indeed, exploring avenues to reign in the intel communities. Ineffectively exploring, for sure, but they are doing what their feeble little minds are capable of.
If I am not mistaken though, their feeble little minds are mostly coming up with proposals to further delegitimize and undermine the whistleblower stature as safeguard against criminal overreach. It'd be uplifting to learn about more constructive legislation, however; have any links?
But, there is a danger here, that we should all be aware of. Any congress critter who makes to much noise may be targeted by the NSA, and quietly blackmailed to shut the hell up. I really don't think the Secret Service can protect a congress person from the NSA and the rest of the intel apparatus. There is really no telling what has happened behind the scenes. Does kristallnacht ring any bells?
Might want to look that last one up before you throw it around on the Interwebs. I get the police state vibe, but this c
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was obvious, but the majority of congress critters were unaware of how pervasive NSA spying is.
I thought it was obvious, but Congress has been deliberately violating the 4th amendment since they granted retroactive immunity to telcos for violating wiretap laws in 2008. A bill which Senator Obama voted for.
All three branches of government are conspiring against the Constitution. The rule of law is well and truly dead in America.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought it was obvious, but the majority of congress critters were unaware of how pervasive NSA spying is.
I thought it was obvious, but Congress has been deliberately violating the 4th amendment since they granted retroactive immunity to telcos for violating wiretap laws in 2008. A bill which Senator Obama voted for.
All three branches of government are conspiring against the Constitution. The rule of law is well and truly dead in America.
I know Americans love to over-use hyperbole, but you do realize that we had Jim Crow? If American democracy can survive that particular travesty it can survive the NSA knowing that you have no life.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was obvious, but the majority of congress critters were unaware of how pervasive NSA spying is. A number of them were shocked to learn how powerful NSA has grown. It's not even really clear that the committee members responsible for national security understood.
Actually, a larger number of them are out there backing the NSA Spying to the hilt. Any Congressman other than a first term greenhorn already voted for most of these measures and has an ass to protect.
The rest of them don't want to have to deal with Pelosi. [cbslocal.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress is working on what exactly?
Fucking things up. What else?
Re:No surprise (Score:4, Insightful)
Re-Election...
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, the 4th Amendment spells out the fact that generalized warrants are not legal.
Re: (Score:3)
Congress is working on what exactly? Amending the Constitution? That's what it would take to make any of this generalized warrantless surveillance legal.
Technically it's not warrantless. The FISA Court grants warrants all the time. You're free to disagree with those warrants, but they do exist,
The Courts may go along with the warrants, or they may not. I'd lean towards them going along with the warrants. FISA Court Judges are Federal Judges appointed by Roberts to the FISA Court. This means they almost certainly agree with Roberts on damn near everything, and Roberts leads a fiarly cohesive faction of 5 votes. The other faction includes multiple people appo
Re:No surprise (Score:5, Funny)
Also: Congress is working on this issue.
That's good to hear. I was afraid the issue may otherwise be left to a group of incompetent, self-serving asshats.
Re: (Score:3)
Also: Congress is working on this issue.
That's good to hear. I was afraid the issue may otherwise be left to a group of incompetent, self-serving asshats.
Those two statements, of course, are not mutually exclusive. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Whoosh
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The Supreme Court is more of a check than an active force - but it is a very powerful check. History has shown that if they act without caution, they can easily make things worse than they were before. (See, for instance, Dred Scott v. Sandford, one of the causes of the Civil War...)
They are willing to step on toes if they need to - lots of cases, recent and historic show that. But they prefer to avoid doing so unless they need to, because it can cause problems. If the other two parts of the government
Re: (Score:2)
It's a waste of their time to rule on a law which is in the process of changing. For instance they wouldn't have wasted their time on the Obamacare decision if congress was likely to make significant amendments and/or appeal it.
The judicial branch is like government QA. If a new build is about to drop, it's a waste of time to do a big bug push.
Re: (Score:2)
The Supreme Court really doesn't like to step on the toes of the other two parts of the government if it doesn't have to.
Well, that's historically the reasoning. The current sitting justices, however, love meddling.
only when necessary - see what Congress does first (Score:2)
The court has decided that in order to do their job most effectively, it's best that they give congress a chance to do theirs first. While congress is in the middle of debating the issue, it's counter-productive for SCOTUS to provoke pointless power struggles all the time. See "the chief justice has made his decision, now let him enforce it".
It's quite possible that congress will address the issue and there will be no need for SCOTUS to get in their face. If congress passes something that's not acceptabl
Re: (Score:2)
Okay okay, sure it doesn't appeal to the whole process.
But we are talking about something that seems, to me, like it would end up in the Supreme Court anyway. If true, why spend a bunch of time and money just stalling the inevitable.
Re:No surprise (Score:4, Insightful)
Because the lower court cases establish the facts and legal questions at hand. They establish a record for the appeals courts to consider. It gives a change for more legal minds to consider it and provide input to the system. It also allows cases in multiple jurisdictions to more fully develop the issue. It also gives an opportunity for the political system to correct the problems - if there is one, without the court having to act. The case may resolve itself for various reasons.
The thing to remember is that when the Supreme Court decides an issue, it is decided, for better or worse. You may not like the outcome, and the resulting precedent. That is why advocacy groups tend to pick their cases for appeal carefully, as well as their arguments. EPIC was reckless.
Which is funny (Score:2)
>>> EPIC tried to jump the line - they didn't follow the proper appeals process. That is highly frowned upon by the legal system and rarely succeeds.
Isn't the NSA and secret courts circumventing the constitution and these people swore an oath to the protect the constitution So the regime can do what it wants but the people must jump through hoops.
Re:Which is funny (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes - you're right. The intel community is indeed trashing the constitution. But - if we are going to defend the constitution, then we need to do it in a constitutional manner. File suit, and win - OR, file suit, be defeated, appeal, be defeated again, appeal again, THEN argue your case in front of the Supremes.
Hey, I don't really like it. It's time consuming, and wasteful, as you suggest. The only other way to put the NSA in it's place, is to have congress just pass some laws defining what is legal, and start defunding the illegal activities.
The remaining alternative is wasteful in terms of human life, as well as money and material. Revolutions can be like that.
Re:Which is funny (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it that you can get arrested for smoking a joint, but when it comes to violating the constitution it seems that the worst punishment is "we'll cut your funding"?
Because the CIA funds its black ops with money from drug running [youtube.com], so it has to remain very illegal to keep the prices up.
Who do you think is really controlling things, the Congress or the permanent bureaucracy that makes the outcomes of elections largely meaningless?
Re:No surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
From their petition:
15
The FISC and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review ("Court of Review") only
have jurisdiction to hear petitions by the Government
or recipient of the FISC Order, and neither party to
the order represents EPIC's interests. Other federal
courts have no jurisdiction over the FISC, and thus
cannot grant the relief that EPIC seeks.
The only people that can appeal the order are the Feds and the people that the feds are ordering around.
EPIC, despite having their metadata vacuumed up, have no standing under the law to appeal to the FISA court.
It's easy for you and others to say "[Epic] didn't follow the proper appeals process"
but AFAIK none of you have actually elucidated what the proper appeals process is under the law.
EPIC has, with citations, laid out their case, starting on Page 14 [epic.org] (PDF)
"Nuh uh" isn't an insightful or interesting rebuttal.
Re: (Score:2)
"Nuh uh" isn't an insightful or interesting rebuttal.
It is when the Supreme Court of the United States does it. Only takes four Justices to grant a writ of certiorari. They couldn't even meet that threshold, which should tell you all you need to know about their chances if they had managed to get the case heard. It was either declined for procedural reasons (improper venue most likely, SCOTUS doesn't have original jurisdiction here, lack of standing is also possible) or because the Justices are mostly in agreement about the issue at hand. If the latter yo
Re: (Score:2)
Good point - get it over with. FISA is only accountable to the Chief Justice anyway - there may not be a structural way to get to FISA, but that's just more damning evidence against FISA. For the several thousand people in the population who seem to actually care, anyhow.
Re: (Score:3)
The only people that can appeal the order are the Feds and the people that the feds are ordering around.
EPIC, despite having their metadata vacuumed up, have no standing under the law to appeal to the FISA court.
It's easy for you and others to say "[Epic] didn't follow the proper appeals process"
but AFAIK none of you have actually elucidated what the proper appeals process is under the law.
This is a somewhat difficult question, especially since the Supreme Court has previously ruled that metadata is considered ordinary business records so the legal hurdle to get them is pretty low. Anyone that wants to challenge this is facing issues of venue, standing, and fighting to effectively overturn or modify an existing Supreme Court precedent. Before laying out what seem to be some possible legal strategies (INAL), it is worth remembering that even the courts acknowledge that some issues are better
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. They declined to grant a writ of certiorari. This is not the same thing as an endorsement of FISA. SCOTUS hears less than 2% of all cases that come before it. EPIC will have to go through the Circuit Courts first, and even then isn't assured of going before SCOTUS, unless the Circuits commit reversible error (rare) or issue contradictory rulings (usually ensures SCOTUS review).
Re: (Score:2)
So, does jumping the line mean they get disqualified from the race altogether or do they just have to get back on course and appeal properly?
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't disqualified, but If they want to pursue the case they will have to start it just like everybody else at the lower court level.
Re: (Score:2)
but If they want to pursue the case they will have to start it just like everybody else at the lower court level
And what court would that be? It appears EPIC's argument is that there is no such court.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's one thing that lawyers are good at, it is coming up with more arguments.
In fact, they are rather professionally disposed to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
It appears EPIC's argument is that there is no such court.
EPIC Catch-22.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... Seems to me that there may not be an venue for overruling the FISA request. However, an "unrelated" case may be made that the NSA obtained meta information illegally. So bring the NSA up on charges about that illegally obtained information. And then when they introduce the FISA request as a defense, then you have grounds to go on that. Mind, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like a reasonable approach and I'm certain that a lawyer could come up with something like that. So don't bother with targeting th
Re:No surprise (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No surprise (Score:4, Insightful)
OR... the NSA has their phones tapped (Actually that's a given fact at this point) and has all sorts of dirt on them.
The problem is, this activity is so heinous, so contemptible, it threatens the very foundations that this country was built on. The fact that every branch of government isn't jumping all over this is highly suspicious to me. The NSA could be in the midst of a silent Coup d'état at the moment and none of us would know. That's how much power they wield. They could blackmail every member of government, every military leader, we'd have no idea. We cannot allow this to stand. It must stop immediately. It's sad that the supreme court values procedure over the constitution. It's like their house is on fire and they refuse to use the fire-extinguisher because the proper paperwork hadn't been filed.
Re: (Score:2)
So... Why would a lawyer try and jump the line like that?
Getting a case in front of SCOTUS is hard enough, why set yourself up to fail by not following procedure? One would think of all people lawyers could follow directions.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of specific policy that allowed Governments to ignore the shit out of their own founding documents or Amendments that exist to protect its citizens from this very abuse.
They don't need a specific policy, they can just do it, like they've been doing for many years now.
What are you (or anyone else) going to do about it? Vote for the other party? The American public has been doing that for decades, and it hasn't changed anything.
See, you really are Serfs (Score:2)
Citizens have rights.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you are still in college I recommend you take a course or two in the functioning of the judicial system. This was an easily predictable failure. You don't make your first filing with the US Supreme Court for just about any case an ordinary citizen could bring.
Even citizens with rights have to follow procedure.
Re:See, you really are Serfs (Score:4, Insightful)
"Even citizens with rights have to follow procedure."
So what you're saying is in order to remove all our rights all the government has to do is make the procedures difficult and esoteric enough that no one could follow them? I hate to bring up Kafka in situations like this but this seems a bit too like something out of Kafka.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it? [slashdot.org]
Proper Procedure (Score:4, Informative)
EPIC had filed the challenge directly with the Supreme Court rather than going through the lower courts.
This is the issue. The Supremes like you to work your way up through the lower courts as it is the proper procedure. If they accepted even a fraction of cases that didn't work the system the way it was designed, they would have a HUGE case load that could have been solved at a lower level.
EPIC will whine about this, but they should have been able to predict the outcome.
Re: (Score:2)
A "solution" that is found in a lower court does not apply everywhere in the country.
If the Ninth Circuit found the NSA wiretapping to be unconstitutional, it would only be unconstitutional in the Ninth Circuit.
EPIC was hoping that the SCOTUS would see this as such an immediate, emergent issue that is imperative to be equal throughout the land, that they would hear it.
EPIC was wrong, apparently.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's kinda how the system is designed.
In many ways the Supremes actually need dueling lower Court rulings to do their jobs because with dueling lower court rulings they can see what both sets of Judge's did, and decided which works. It also generates a lot of paperwork (briefs, arguments, etc.) that the Supreme Court needs but has no experience creating on it's own.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Why does this specific issue get to jump the line? Because it's something that you really care about?
Gay and interracial marriages had to wait in line. The right of a woman to have an abortion had to wait in line. The right of American citizens to not be placed in freaking concentration camps had to wait in line. Why is the right to not be spied on so special that everything else on SCOTUS's case list must take a backseat? Yes, it's a pressing matter and it's a terrible thing that the NSA is doin
Re: (Score:3)
Why? Why does this specific issue get to jump the line?
Because only the SCOTUS has jurisdiction over the FISC. No other courts have jurisdiction, so cannot and will not hear such cases.
It's a judicial Catch-22.
SCOTUS says you must go to a Federal District court and/or a Federal Appeals court first.
Those courts have no jurisdiction over the FISC, so therefor cannot rule on the case.
Result: SCOTUS denial of certiorari = FISC is untouchable.
So then, since the whole thing was deliberately set up with no legal avenues to challenge FISC possible, I guess this leaves
Re: (Score:2)
There needs to be a way to get the supreme court's attention almost immediately if something is determined to likely be unconstitutional or is an extremely urgent matter. This is a failing of our system.
That's not a failing of our system; that's the entire point. Things "determined to likely be unconstitutional or an extremely urgent matter" describes pretty much everything the Supreme Court looks at. If it weren't urgent or important, they wouldn't even look at it at all.
Yeah, making any real decision is HARD (Score:2, Insightful)
God forbid SCOTUS make a decision that in any way matters, challenges the status quo in any way, or requires them to work late. Unless they're doing something to benefit the powerful corporations [wikipedia.org], best to just ignore the issue altogether and hope the lower courts aren't so lazy.
Re: (Score:2)
That "Citizens United" axe must be getting awfully sharp, people keep grinding on it over just about any excuse or topic.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Citizens United made it easier to buy important political offices in the United States. When you have a bought Congress, not much is solvable, because the elected paradoxically owe nothing to those who voted them in. We're nobody, but the people who dropped billi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Citizens United made it easier to buy important political offices in the United States.
I hate to break it to you, but Political Action Committees (PACs) were already allowed to accept limitless donations and to air their opinions whenever and wherever they wanted. All Citizens United did was remove the restraints on other corporations, which encompasses everything from Citizens United (the corporation that brought the suit) to the Sierra Club. Incumbent legislators hate this, because they were the ones who usually ran the PACs, and now they have to contend with speech they have no control o
Re: (Score:3)
Listening and seeing hoe eadily people are swayed by the billionaire controlled media
Spoken like a Liberal who thinks we need to "protect" people from themselves, because gosh, we can't actually trust them to make up their own minds. They just might decide contrary to the way that we know is right, and then where would we be?
You're describing authoritarianism, not liberalism — and authoritarianism can come from both left ("no smoking!") or right ("no abortions!"); libertarianism is the opposition to authoritarians' liberty-crackdowns.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because the laws are made to make the poor shut the fuck up.
And keep them poor, but that's another issue...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Spoken like a Liberal who thinks we need to "protect" people from themselves, because gosh, we can't actually trust them to make up their own minds. They just might decide contrary to the way that we know is right, and then where would we be?
I don't know, maybe we'd not have the Religious Right Conservatives pushing their morality down our throats. No drugs, no abortions, no gays. Amazing how it's only the "liberals" who boss people around. Though it would look that way to a homophobic anti-choice fascist. You don't notice their oppression when it oppresses those you don't like.
Citizens United was decided correctly. (Score:2)
Unless they're doing something to benefit the powerful corporations [wikipedia.org]
You do realize that Citizens United [citizensunited.org] is a corporation that was created for the specific purpose of advancing political speech, right? It's no different than MoveOn.org, it was just a bunch of like-minded people that got together to advance something they believe in. The easiest way to band together in our political-legal system is to create a corporation. The NRA is a corporation. So is the Sierra Club. Labor Unions too, they're almost always incorporated. And let's not forget the press, the majority o
EPIC: Fail - Lawyers: Win (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to say that it's kinda like the coins you gather along the way negated, but on second thought, it's more like the quarters you have to put into the arcade.
The SCOTUS usually becomes involved when the appellate opinions differ between districts. The system itself is designed to be slow and painstaking. The fact that lawyers get to charge a thousand dollars an hour to go through the system largely speaks to more a problem with how lawyers are valued and less the system.
Why not file in Texas? (Score:3)
The whole "working your way through the courts" process can be radically shortened if you're willing to play the game. To wit:
1. File in Texas.
2. Claim less than $25 in damages.
3. Lose in small claims court.
4. Texas law provides ZERO appeals for cases this small, so
5. Go straight to the Supreme Court.
The SC has previously heard at least one notable case that got there through this mechanism.
Justices scared? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I have got to laugh at this level of ignorance. You just might want to review what happened during that time frame.
1. Election happened.
2. Democrats cried 'foul', there must be a recount.
3. Much legal wrangling and counting went on. A nice summary was
Republicans - This has to go to the Supreme Court.
Democrats - Nope, it's too early for the Supreme Count. We can handle it at a lower level.
4. Repeat step 3 until time is almost out.
5. The case finally g
Re: (Score:3)
IIRC, the "lower level" was a Republican governor and a Republican-stacked State Supreme Court.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not the Supreme Court's job to go over each and every single piece if legislation or judgements that people don't like. If you allow that, you end up with a court like the Irish Supreme court, which gives every newly minted millionare in Dublin his day in court over even the most petty of business decisions. The court becomes useless, the law becomes a joke, and ultimately society suffers as the highest court in the land becomes little more than a formalised decision body for the local Golf clubs.