This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Obama to Scotus: Please don't rule on NSA snooping.

#21JIC XPosted 10/19/2013 9:34:27 PM
TaiIs82 posted...
Obama, California's governor, and other Democrats have made it clear in court cases that they believe they can simply ignore laws they don't like and nobody has standing to challenge them.


Yeah, because righteous Republicans have never attempted to strip the SCOTUS of jurisdiction...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld
---
I mock your value system. You also appear foolish in the eyes of others. {WoT} {WoT}, Emeritus
#22JIC XPosted 10/19/2013 9:36:37 PM
Oh, I found the government's brief in this case.
I'll take a look see. https://epic.org/privacy/nsa/in-re-epic/13-58-SG-Brief.pdf
---
I mock your value system. You also appear foolish in the eyes of others. {WoT} {WoT}, Emeritus
#23JIC XPosted 10/19/2013 10:13:35 PM(edited)
Okay, the basic issue is that the legislation (which, incidentally, was passed in 1978 and amended in 2001) does not provide for appellate review of surveillance orders... Well, more accurately, there is a right of appeal, but only for the government:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1803

If any judge so designated denies an application for an order authorizing electronic surveillance under this chapter, such judge shall provide immediately for the record a written statement of each reason of his decision and, on motion of the United States, the record shall be transmitted, under seal, to the court of review established in subsection (b) of this section.

See? The legislation only allows an appeal from a DENIAL of an application for an order.*
Since only the government can apply for an order, that means only the government can appeal.

Anyway, I guess Tails and SMAL would have the Administration just not mention this to the SCOTUS. See, by adverting to the text of the law and telling the Court what it says, Obama is ignoring the law. And so we see the workings of Tailsian logic, which is built on but one axiom: "Obama is always wrong". If the fabric of reality has to bend to accommodate that axiom, then bend it shall.

*The government also argues that even if the appellants do have a right of appeal here, they skipped a step by going directly to the Supreme Court; there's an intermediate court of appeal (which is called the FISC Review Court, or something) between the FISC and the SCOTUS, and they should have appealed there first.
---
I mock your value system. You also appear foolish in the eyes of others. {WoT} {WoT}, Emeritus
#24GrassyKnoll63Posted 10/19/2013 10:58:14 PM
S4veTheWh4lers

Change©
Transparency©

Terrorism©
National Security©
Safety©

LOL ok dude.

,
---
50yrs since JFK was assassinated. Plenty of doubt casts over official findings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etgDxSUKLqc
#25Sativa_RosePosted 10/19/2013 11:11:22 PM
If the President asks the Supreme Court not to rule on something, the Supreme Court should make that ruling it's number one priority.
---
Not changing my signature until Canadian citizen and marijuana legalization activist Marc Emery is released from U.S. federal prison.
#26JIC XPosted 10/20/2013 12:05:53 AM
Sativa_Rose posted...
If the President asks the Supreme Court not to rule on something, the Supreme Court should make that ruling it's number one priority.


Even if the president is correct that the Court lacks jurisdiction?

(That's what the government is doing here, tendentious topic title notwithstanding. It's responding to a petition for certiorari--that is, it's making a legal argument in the normal way. I posted the government's brief above. Take a look. There's nothing unusual or improper in the least about seeking dismissal for want of jurisdiction. It happens all the time. As. Matter of fact, it's what happened in Marbury v. Madison.

Incidentally, the government's argument is pretty strong. The statute says that only the government can appeal a FISC decision regarding a s. 1801 order. Assuming the satire to be constitutional--see my posts above for my sense on that--there's no getting around it.)
---
I mock your value system. You also appear foolish in the eyes of others. {WoT} {WoT}, Emeritus
#27MaxCHEATER64Posted 10/20/2013 3:31:45 AM
NecroNikolai13 posted...
I.. but... if the Supreme Court wouldn't have jurisdiction, who would?


The NSA, of course.
---
i5-3570K | HD 7850 | Z77-D3H | 700W | Intel 550 180GB | Seagate Barracuda 1T
http://i.imgur.com/xUwa3va.png
#28GrizzmeisterPosted 10/20/2013 6:25:44 AM
JIC X posted...
The government also argues that even if the appellants do have a right of appeal here, they skipped a step by going directly to the Supreme Court; there's an intermediate court of appeal (which is called the FISC Review Court, or something) between the FISC and the SCOTUS, and they should have appealed there first.

It appears that JIC X is well versed in the law but itís the spirit of those laws that people are having issues with.

Nonetheless, Iím fine with some intermediate court between the Supreme Court and the FISC investigating whether or not the NSAís actions are Constitutional. At least in the short term until Glenn Greenwald exposes indefensible systemic corruption at the agency.
---
Speaking on condition of anonymity.
#29JIC XPosted 10/20/2013 8:15:09 AM(edited)
Grizzmeister posted...
JIC X posted...
The government also argues that even if the appellants do have a right of appeal here, they skipped a step by going directly to the Supreme Court; there's an intermediate court of appeal (which is called the FISC Review Court, or something) between the FISC and the SCOTUS, and they should have appealed there first.

It appears that JIC X is well versed in the law but itís the spirit of those laws that people are having issues with.

Nonetheless, Iím fine with some intermediate court between the Supreme Court and the FISC investigating whether or not the NSAís actions are Constitutional. At least in the short term until Glenn Greenwald exposes indefensible systemic corruption at the agency.


The "spirit" of the law is that Congress didn't want these orders to be subject to appeal.
Since, subject only to the United States Constitution, Congress' word is law, the only question left is whether the absence of an appeal is unconstitutional. I guess we'll see (maybe--the application the government has asked the SCOTUS not to grant is for a writ of certiorari, which the Court refuses to grant in more than 99% of cases anyway).

Article III, s. 2 of the Constitution specifically states that Congress can make "exceptions" to the Supreme Court's general appellate jurisdiction:

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, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

---
I mock your value system. You also appear foolish in the eyes of others. {WoT} {WoT}, Emeritus
#30GrassyKnoll63Posted 10/20/2013 8:15:15 AM
http://www.naturalnews.com/040710_NSA_surveillance_Obamacare_Supreme_Court_decision.html#

So the President wants them not to do what? I think I see how this will play out.

,
---
50yrs since JFK was assassinated. Plenty of doubt casts over official findings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etgDxSUKLqc