Skip to comments.U.S. justices reject call to review intelligence court action on phone records
Posted on 11/18/2013 10:59:31 AM PST by EveningStar
The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday it would not review a ruling by a secretive intelligence court that authorized government access to millions of Verizon Communications Inc (VZ.N) phone-call records.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
High court statism continues unabated. Much more and I can’t see people taking their rulings as binding anymore.
Oh now HERE’S a surprise.
Looks like Kagan has really taken control of SCROTUS. Did she major in Hypnosis or parapsychology?
Or just ate the souls out of the other eight and they’re just empty robes sitting there and she casts all nine votes.
How dare they not render a decision on an agency that has blackmailed them not to render a decision.
Anyone know offhand how many one-sentence decisions the SCOTUS issues in a session?
The Supreme Court has become as useless as the Congress.
The whole mess needs to be gotten rid of and a new Govt. formed like the founders formed it before the politicians took over.
Supreme Court again failing to do its constitutional duty... UGH.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
In a typical year, about 9-10,000 cases are filed with the Court, but they agree to hear only about 100 or so. All the rest are disposed of with "The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied."
They did not file in the lower courts first. I believe this is why the case was rejected.
The are apparently several other cases making their way through the system where the plaintiff has standing.
This SCOTUS is an absolute joke.
There’s always time for years of procedure when people’s civil rights are bring violated.
There are many cases working there way through the courts. This one was filed to circumvent that process.
Just out of curiosity where did "standing" come from?
“Actually, the Supreme Court did the right thing in this case”
Glad you posted that.
Not trying to keep anyone from bashing the SCOTUS, because they need it, but this decision was so easy, it’s funny.
They tried to bring a case that had no legal grounds for this high court to consider. Neither verizon nor the government had brought a case to the lower court and they are ones with standing. Verizon because it was asked to do some objectionable things and could sue civily and the government would have to defend various privacy issues.
There was no ripe case to consider, the action that came to them would hardly be a good friend of the court brief..It would be akin to bringing a case direct to SCOTUS on a human rights issue because the price of milk was too high at Piggly Wiggly and women and children were getting no calcium.
They will get a case...won’t be too long..But it needs to have the lower courts rule on it first to give it standing at SCOTUS. More than that, the aggreeved party has to show damage or something that they can quantify. Verizon would be the best plaintiff. Not the Electronic Privacy Information Center who would normally enjoin a suit, or brief it, not file it as plaintiff..
The "cases and controversies" language of the 1st paragraph prohibits federal courts from rendering decisions where the parties don't have a dog in the hunt, while the 2nd paragraph limits the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to the types of cases enumerated.
This is how the scam works -- the government spies on you in secret, and issues a gag order to prevent anyone who knows about the spying from talking about it. That way, if you don't know that you're being spied on, you can't complain (because you don't know that you have cause for complaint); if you do know that you're being spied on, you can't complain (because you'd be Gitmoized for violating the gag order). Win-win for the jackboots; lose-lose for the Constitution.
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.And the ACA is binding upon the states, therefore the States must be a party. (And in this case, so are the federal government, and the peoples of the states as well.)
Your privacy is violated only if you know about it.
See this article.
Or, more humorously, Colbert Savages NSA and Rep. Mike Rogers in 'See No Evil' Segment.
Except no state was a party, either as plaintiff or defendant, in the action the Court declined to hear.