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