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

Skip to comments.

U.S. justices reject call to review intelligence court action on phone records
Reuters ^ | November 18, 2013 | Lawrence Hurley

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 ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: epic; intelligence; nsa; scotus; verizon

1 posted on 11/18/2013 10:59:32 AM PST by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

High court statism continues unabated. Much more and I can’t see people taking their rulings as binding anymore.


2 posted on 11/18/2013 11:06:22 AM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

Oh now HERE’S a surprise.


3 posted on 11/18/2013 11:07:11 AM PST by Lazamataz (Early 2009 to 7/21/2013 - RIP my little girl Cathy. You were the best cat ever. You will be missed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

Cowards.


4 posted on 11/18/2013 11:09:30 AM PST by WayneS (Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th (and 17th))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

Looks like Kagan has really taken control of SCROTUS. Did she major in Hypnosis or parapsychology?


5 posted on 11/18/2013 11:12:09 AM PST by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (If Americans were as concerned for their country as Egyptians are, Obama would be ousted!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America

Or just ate the souls out of the other eight and they’re just empty robes sitting there and she casts all nine votes.


6 posted on 11/18/2013 11:13:08 AM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

How dare they not render a decision on an agency that has blackmailed them not to render a decision.


7 posted on 11/18/2013 11:14:39 AM PST by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (If Americans were as concerned for their country as Egyptians are, Obama would be ousted!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

Anyone know offhand how many one-sentence decisions the SCOTUS issues in a session?


8 posted on 11/18/2013 11:18:53 AM PST by Makana (Old soldiers never die. They just read Free Republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
Guess they didn't want the *Roberts treatment* that he got over Obamacare.
9 posted on 11/18/2013 11:19:30 AM PST by The Cajun (Sarah Palin, Mark Levin, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Louie Gohmert......Nuff said.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

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.


10 posted on 11/18/2013 11:22:28 AM PST by Venturer (Keep Obama and you aint seen nothing yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

Supreme Court again failing to do its constitutional duty... UGH.


11 posted on 11/18/2013 11:30:14 AM PST by TheBattman (Isn't the lesser evil... still evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar; Lurking Libertarian; Perdogg; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; ...

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

12 posted on 11/18/2013 12:07:55 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Makana
Anyone know offhand how many one-sentence decisions the SCOTUS issues in a session?

Thousands.

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."

13 posted on 11/18/2013 1:00:11 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

They did not file in the lower courts first. I believe this is why the case was rejected.


14 posted on 11/18/2013 1:01:56 PM PST by CityCenter (Resist Obamacare!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman
Actually, the Supreme Court did the right thing in this case. The Petitioner was unable to allege any standing to bring the Petition.

The are apparently several other cases making their way through the system where the plaintiff has standing.

15 posted on 11/18/2013 1:03:36 PM PST by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

This SCOTUS is an absolute joke.


16 posted on 11/18/2013 1:31:16 PM PST by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CityCenter

There’s always time for years of procedure when people’s civil rights are bring violated.


17 posted on 11/18/2013 2:38:31 PM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

There are many cases working there way through the courts. This one was filed to circumvent that process.


18 posted on 11/18/2013 2:55:21 PM PST by CityCenter (Resist Obamacare!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky
The Petitioner was unable to allege any standing to bring the Petition.

Just out of curiosity where did "standing" come from?

19 posted on 11/20/2013 11:33:36 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 15 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky

“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.

IMHO

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..


20 posted on 11/21/2013 12:05:00 AM PST by Cold Heat (Have you reached your breaking point yet? If not now....then when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.

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.

21 posted on 11/21/2013 5:26:40 AM PST by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky
The Petitioner was unable to allege any standing to bring the Petition.

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.

22 posted on 11/21/2013 9:09:28 AM PST by kobald
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky
Ah, but it says this:
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.)
23 posted on 11/21/2013 11:32:26 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 21 | View Replies]

To: kobald
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.

24 posted on 11/21/2013 11:40:24 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 22 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Except no state was a party, either as plaintiff or defendant, in the action the Court declined to hear.


25 posted on 11/21/2013 11:47:04 AM PST by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | 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