Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court Won't Allow Challenge To Surveillance Law
AP ^ | 02/26/2013 | Jesse J. Holland

Posted on 02/26/2013 9:54:14 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A sharply-divided Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out an attempt by U.S. citizens to challenge the expansion of a surveillance law used to monitor conversations of foreign spies and terrorist suspects.

With a 5-4 vote, the high court ruled that a group of American lawyers, journalists and organizations can't sue to challenge the 2008 expansion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) because they can't prove that the government will monitor their conversations along with those of potential foreign terrorist and intelligence targets.

(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 0rigging; fisa; scotus; surveillance

1 posted on 02/26/2013 9:54:22 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

2 posted on 02/26/2013 9:56:27 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

IMHO, assed backwards.

What safeguards are guaranteed?? I’ll bet ZERO.

I guess we’ll just have to trust ‘ol gov’t.

Some stalwarts of the People we got there...


3 posted on 02/26/2013 10:01:01 AM PST by i_robot73 (We hold that all individuals have the Right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives - LP.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: i_robot73
"Some stalwarts of the People we got there..."

Agreed. The burden of proof should be on the government. The court should have requested the government to identify the safeguards in place to protect citizenry which should include some form of independent monitoring.

4 posted on 02/26/2013 10:05:51 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Looks like a ruling over standing, not the law itself.


5 posted on 02/26/2013 10:07:34 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

From the same people who OKd ObamaCare.....the Supremicist Court

A big “bleep you” to the people.

You have no rights.....wake up people...


6 posted on 02/26/2013 10:10:05 AM PST by SeminoleCounty (GOP = Greenlighting Obama's Programs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
That's exactly what happened. Alito said in the majority opinion :

It is possible that the monitoring of the target's conversations with his or her attorney would provide grounds for a claim of standing on the part of the attorney. Such an attorney would certainly have a stronger evidentiary basis for establishing standing than do respondents in the present case.

7 posted on 02/26/2013 10:14:59 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: i_robot73

While it seems so on its face, generally one cannot sue unless one demonstrates that harm/damage has occurred or such harm is imminent. Alito said in the majority opinion that this ruling is not intended to insulate the FISA expansion from judicial review. He essentially said, “Come back when you can prove that the government has intercepted your communications and we’ll hear the case.”


8 posted on 02/26/2013 10:22:01 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
Awesome.

May God condemn those double-dealing watchmen and unjust judges, for supporting the whims of tyrants over the rights of the people.

9 posted on 02/26/2013 10:22:01 AM PST by backwoods-engineer (Blog: www.BackwoodsEngineer.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

ECHELON.


10 posted on 02/26/2013 10:29:09 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to be "protected" by government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

The burden of proof is (and should be ) on the plaintiffs in our judicial system. But it is disconcerting that we have to wait until the government actually violates rights until the court will entertain arguments on the FISA expansion.


11 posted on 02/26/2013 10:30:02 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Actually, the robed gang uf thugs is really going to ensure more calls and communications are private. Now that they basically gave a wink and a nod to the government to listen in on whatever it wants, more people will start encrypting their calls, texts and emails. Apps are already spreading to do just that. Time to stick it to “the man.” If they want to listen in, make them Cray-Up and do the math for a few centuries to make any sense of what they get from you.


12 posted on 02/26/2013 10:32:15 AM PST by Orangedog (An optimist is someone who tells you to 'cheer up' when things are going his way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer

Just remember one thing..

the “Tyrants” that brought this to light and initially signed it into law was bushie and the pubs, who controlled both the house and senate at the time...

enough said


13 posted on 02/26/2013 10:32:28 AM PST by joe fonebone (The clueless... they walk among us, and they vote...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeminoleCounty

“From the same people who OKd ObamaCare.....the Supremicist Court”

Half right. It of course, came down to the LIB FACTION of the SC to ruin the country once again.


14 posted on 02/26/2013 10:44:38 AM PST by max americana (Make the world a better place by punching a liberal in the face)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Congress, at Last Minute, Drops Requirement to Obtain Warrant to Monitor Email
http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/congress-at-last-minute-drops-requirement-to-obtain-warrant-to-monitor-email-121225?news=846578
The gubmint is free to listen to your phone calls and read your emails ...since these were not around at the time the 4th Amendment was incorporated. (wearing my leftard hat)
And apparently that’s how The Regime reads it:

Justice Department Expands Hunt for Data on Cellphones
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/justice-department-expands-hunt-for-data-on-cellphones/

Obama’s NSA eavesdropping goes beyond that of Bush... after campaigning on the promise of: “ No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me!”
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9845595-7.html
headlines read:”

NSA Exceeds Legal Limits In Eavesdropping Program” , “ U.S. phone intercepts go beyond legal limits” , and “NSA Found Improperly Spying on Americans”.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123985123667923961.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://uk.reuters.com/article/burningIssues/idUKTRE53F09820090416
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/15/justice-dept-nsa-improperly-spied-americans/

Obama Supporters Think His Policies Are Crazy And Immoral When Attributed To Romney-
Warrantless Spying, Drone Wars, Kill Lists, Patriot Act On Steroids
http://www.beachwoodreporter.com/politics/obama_supporters_think_his_pol


15 posted on 02/26/2013 10:51:05 AM PST by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone

FISA was originaly from 1978, amended in 2001, 2007, 2208 and 2012. Big mix of blame, not jus the pubs.


16 posted on 02/26/2013 10:56:20 AM PST by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone; backwoods-engineer

Actually these amendments were passed by the 110th Congress in 2008 when the Dems had control.

House - 233 (D), 198 (R)
Senate - 49 (D), 49 (R)

The House voted 293 - 129 for it. The Senate voted 69 - 28 for it. President Bush did sign it into law though.

Then the 112th Congress voted to extend the law for five years.

House - 242 (R), 193 (D)
Senate - 51(D), 47 (R)

House voted 301 - 118 for it; Senate voted 73 - 23 for it.


17 posted on 02/26/2013 10:59:13 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Thank you for the post and ping, Tex.


18 posted on 02/26/2013 11:05:07 AM PST by TheOldLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN; i_robot73

They had no standing. This isn’t a victory for big government, plus we’re naive to hope some judge will protect our rights. The burden of proof should be on the government and the American way is via legislation.

Let’s elect the right people. Why aren’t we pulling back to pre-9/11 security levels if we’re pulling back out of Iraq and Afghanistan?


19 posted on 02/26/2013 11:16:12 AM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
"The burden of proof is (and should be ) on the plaintiffs in our judicial system."

In most civil matters, I'd agree. But when it comes to protecting civil rights from the government, I think the burden should shift. Especially in a case like this where large scale warrant-less clandestine spying can easily become "unreasonable search".

It's a reasonable expectation by citizenry that some safeguards be imposed, and the court should have recognized that expectation even if the legislature failed to.

20 posted on 02/26/2013 11:21:20 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD
"The burden of proof should be on the government and the American way is via legislation."

Yeah but the founding fathers didn't trust legislation or majority rule completely. That's why they passed the bill of rights as amendments that would be hard to change.

21 posted on 02/26/2013 11:26:25 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

I don’t agree with the burden shifting to the government (defendant) in those cases, but I do think the burden for proving standing in such cases should be less than the very rigid standards the courts use today in determining whether or not the plaintiffs have standing. Financial damages can be reimbursed, but the courts can’t undo the damage of violating rights and privacy. Saying “Oops! What the gov’t did was unconstitutional,” isn’t a just remedy IMHO.


22 posted on 02/26/2013 11:34:59 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
That's why they passed the bill of rights as amendments that would be hard to change.

Yeah tell that to the 9th and 10th Amendments.

23 posted on 02/26/2013 11:36:17 AM PST by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
He essentially said, “Come back when you can prove that the government has intercepted your communications and we’ll hear the case.”

Which is just fine for Uncle Scam. Any evidence of spying on the American people will remain secret under "national security" and any whistle blowers that bring forth evidence of this illegal activity will be put in jail.

And this no standing BS is that same reason Barry Soetoro is still in the White Hut. Apparently no citizen has standing in government courts when they try to sue the government for violating the Constitution.

24 posted on 02/26/2013 12:14:19 PM PST by Count of Monte Fisto (Republicans are to the Democrats as the Generals are to the Harlem Globetrotters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

- Until it infringes upon and/or mortally damages a SCOTUS Justice or Obama thou have no standing


25 posted on 02/26/2013 1:29:53 PM PST by devolve ( ------------ ---It is not where Obama was born that is the problem - it is where he*s living now -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone
The FISA Court predates GWB.

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court

The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (or FISC) is a U.S. federal court authorized under 50 U.S.C. S: 1803, Pub.L. 95-511, 92 Stat. 1788, enacted October 25, 1978. It was established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA).

26 posted on 02/26/2013 1:34:09 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: devolve
- Until it infringes upon and/or mortally damages a SCOTUS Justice or Obama thou have no standing

If we wanted the USSC to reverse the terrible Kelo decision what we would do is seize all of their land-property based on imaginary numbers (called projections) for tax increases, just like New London -- and spread the same to anyone who even housed them for more than two weeks.

27 posted on 02/26/2013 3:41:26 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: max americana
It of course, came down to the LIB FACTION of the SC to ruin the country once again.

Alito was joined in his decision by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

What would you expect from a gang of Republican appointees in the Earl Warren tradition.

28 posted on 02/26/2013 6:34:49 PM PST by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone; TurboZamboni; BuckeyeTexan; Ratman83; OneWingedShark; Carry_Okie

http://www.disinfo.com/2013/02/silent-circle-the-new-encryption-app-terrifying-the-government/

The idea is to “democratize encryption” by making it available to the non-tech-savvy with the push of a button. Will this be used for good or evil? Slate‘s Ryan Gallagher explains:

The startup tech firm Silent Circle’s groundbreaking encrypted data transfer app will enable people to send files securely from a smartphone or tablet at the touch of a button—photographs, videos, spreadsheets, you name it—sent scrambled from one person to another in a matter of seconds.

The technology uses a sophisticated peer-to-peer encryption technique that allows users to send encrypted files of up to 60 megabytes through a “Silent Text” app. The sender of the file can set it on a timer so that it will automatically “burn”—deleting it from both devices after a set period of, say, seven minutes. It’s a game-changer that will almost certainly make life easier and safer for journalists, dissidents, diplomats, and companies trying to evade surveillance.


29 posted on 02/26/2013 7:43:14 PM PST by B4Ranch (When democracy turns to tyranny, we still get to vote. We just won't use voting booths to do it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

The justices said that those filing the lawsuit had no standing.

Fine.

I wish judges across America would follow this same logic when radical environmental groups file their silly lawsuits......these environmentalists have no standing either in the overwhelming majority of their lawsuits.


30 posted on 02/26/2013 8:39:22 PM PST by july4thfreedomfoundation (November 6, 2012.....A day that will live in infamy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

yes, the fisa court is a jimmah carter deal...

bushie just gave it more teeth...

and of course, fubo is putting metal incisors on the teeth bushie gave him..


31 posted on 02/27/2013 4:15:25 AM PST by joe fonebone (The clueless... they walk among us, and they vote...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

The mission-impossible-style self-destruct feature is fascinating.


32 posted on 02/27/2013 6:11:45 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Count of Monte Fisto

You raise a good point. How will the respondents prove that their communications have been intercepted? It is my understanding that Congress (a couple of reps) sent a letter to the DOJ asking how many Americans have had their communications intercepted under FISA and the DOJ responded that to answer that question would violate the privacy of those citizens.


33 posted on 02/27/2013 6:18:23 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: max americana
Half right. It of course, came down to the LIB FACTION of the SC to ruin the country once again.

The four liberals dissented from this decision. The majority decision was by the four "conservatives" plus the swing-vote Kennedy.

34 posted on 02/27/2013 8:01:49 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
It is my understanding that Congress (a couple of reps) sent a letter to the DOJ asking how many Americans have had their communications intercepted under FISA and the DOJ responded that to answer that question would violate the privacy of those citizens.

IOW enough to cause a major backlash politically if it were known. I'm guessing that it's 30% or more -- though even 10% would be disturbing.

35 posted on 02/27/2013 8:56:54 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken


36 posted on 02/28/2013 10:29:59 AM PST by B4Ranch (When democracy turns to tyranny, we still get to vote. We just won't use voting booths to do it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson