Next move - Supreme Court.

I doubt the Supreme Court will even entertain hearing an appeal. Social Security is a federal agency thus don't know how anyone thinks they have any privacy...Semper Fi, Mike

U.S. Chief District Judge Robert Holmes Bell ruled against the department Tuesday, less than two weeks after hearing arguments.

Whoa there! Gotta go to the Appeals Court first.

Yep... my law class was a little too long ago to remember that step. Thanks.

I'm impressed, Michigan's secretary of state is standing up for citizen's rights.
Nice to see a few people in the government know what their job really is.

"The government's purpose is to..."

Change the rules for yet another "good reason".
They always have a "good reason".

"Michigan has a free choice" -- it can collect the numbers and get federal money or refuse and give up the cash."

The classic example of the fed government strong arming the state government.
Perhaps Michigan should quit sending federal tax money to the fed for awhile.
Of course, they would have heavily-armed storm troups kicking in doors in no time flat.
The fed has shown us several times the way they deal with civil disobedience.
We have also seen how the judges rule when the fed is taken to court over those methods.
The powers have sure become bold...

It's for the %@*!&$# children.

This a big kick in the teeth for all states.What they are saying is congress makes the laws and not the states and if you don't play the fed rules then you don't get any federal money!I'd tell the fed to take a hike and go back to its little 10 mile square in Washington.Also the state shouldn't give the fed a dime and stand on the 10th amendment principal.

"While the individual legitimately wants to protect herself from problems of identity theft, there is nothing to suggest that federal agencies (or states) perpetrate or facilitate identity theft," he said.

Note the judge's use of the feminine pronoun. This is an indication that he is a politically correct leftist and probable Clinton appointee.

Hmm, the if my state may "decide" to accept the restriction or forgo the federal cash, does this mean I may decide not to send the cash to the feds and avoid being prosecuted? I think not. If there is no escape, it is not voluntary on anyone's part, so any argument stating the state may decide is a specious and thus disenfranchising. Methinks there is a worm in the apple....

The Privacy Act of 1974 proves that the fed has totally lied.It ignores its own laws in order to gain control of the people and the states!This reminds me of everything the Indians were promised by the fed but the fed never kept one of its promises.

"I'd tell the fed to take a hike and go back to its little 10 mile square in Washington."

That's EXACTLY what needs to be done.
The fed needs to be reminded of it's proper place in our society.
It's place is NOT "dictator" or "daddy" to the state government or the American people.
That place is "servant".

Note the judge's use of the feminine pronoun. This is an indication that he is a politically correct leftist and probable Clinton appointee.

Shows how much you know. Listen up: liberal judges NEVER rule against privacy rights. It is only conservatives like Ashcroft and Hatch who want to take away our rights to privacy. Only conservatives do that. Liberals NEVER do.

As an indication of that, note that this judge, Bell, is a conservative and was an appointee of (ya ready?) ... Ronald Magnus.

Listen up: liberal judges NEVER rule against privacy rights.

OK, then post every decision on privacy for the last five years by liberal federal judges to back up your assertion.

I hate to say this but I see the fed using the Constutition as a doormat to the peoples rights and the states rights.Bombard your congressmann over this issue and contact all to rally for states rights.This irks me to death to see the fed acting like the little worm they are.The Founders did not create this type of out of control federal government that we have in the 21st century.The Founders always preached never to trust government because government is force thats needs to be tamed like the out of control animal they are.

No need to apeal. Just put up signs in the Licence Offices suggesting that everyone give a certain phony number. The State can then turn over a list showing that everyone in the State has the same SS No. 111-11-1111

Or the # could be 666-00-0000.

OK, then post every decision on privacy for the last five years by liberal federal judges to back up
your assertion.

You have a long wait ahead of you.

'Shows how much you know. Listen up: liberal judges NEVER rule against privacy rights. It is only conservatives like Ashcroft and Hatch who want to take away our rights to privacy. Only conservatives do that. Liberals NEVER do.'

Typical Hildy, say something stupid and then run. I am still waiting for you to show me how the poor pay 25% in federal income tax.

Great Idea! Since the my state, California , no longer asks obvious illegal aliens for proof of citizenship, we can use the same excuse to the Federal Government, ie, "We asked but they said they didn't have a number"!

Shows how much you know. Listen up: liberal judges NEVER rule against privacy rights.

If this were really true then "Social Security" would not exist in the first place. Since the case in question has to do with Social Security numbers, then, one can only conclude that your comment is absurd.

The only way your statement can even make sense is if you have your very own special definition of "privacy rights", and according to this definition, Social Security (namely, the right not to participate in Social Security or have the "Social Security number" used for identification purposes, as it states on the actual card) does not qualify.

This is all not to mention the zillions of other issues on which so-called "liberals" are against privacy rights: collection of taxes, affirmative action, wheelchair access ramps, whether one chops down a tree on his own damn property, ownership of firearms, how one schools his children, etc etc etc etc... The list is too numerous to even hint at.

So I guess I agree with you: so-called "liberals" are never against "privacy rights". That is because they don't even recognize any "privacy rights" in the first place.

(Except, of course, the "right" to get an abortion and have taxpayers pay for it. But that's another story.)