Skip to comments.Judge Upholds NSA Phone Snooping Program [ "reasonableness" is the liberal litmus test ]
Posted on 12/27/2013 1:08:49 PM PST by NoLibZone
Today, a judge ruled that the NSA surveillance program that collects millions of American's phone calls is "lawful." The case was brought by the ACLU: American Civil Liberties Union et al v. Clapper et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 13-03994
In his ruling, U.S District Judge Willian Pauley described how the government program "vacuums up information about virtually every telephone call to, from, or within the United States." But went on to say that the program's constitutionality "is ultimately a question of reasonableness," and that there was no evidence that the government had used "bulk telephony metadata" for any reason other than to investigate and disrupt terrorist attacks.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Quartering troops in your abode? It’s reasonable - where else would they stay. General warrant allows the gubermint to snoop through your things? It’s reasonable. If you have done nothing wrong, what do you have to fear? Oh, worried about what we deem wrong? That’s not reasonable.
How nuance-able and relative.
If they do it to you. If you do it to the Taliban, its fascism.
Unreasonableness? I guess I can plead, fedupwiddisness.
This is what it looks like to an outside observer: A judges decides, then orders his minions to find law that supports his decision.
I always get a belly laugh when I hear about judges reflecting on ‘reasonable’. First of all I don’t know diddly if any such judge has a sense of reason; many of the ones I know of and have dealt with are little more than personal job scabs. Secondly when a judge at any level gives out sanctimonious talk to ordinary citizens in the vein of some God given superior gift or mandate of justice I believe it is time to really time to look deep into that judge’s life history. I have known too many judges with skeletons in their closets.
Fed up wid dis ness. : )
It should be kept in mind that Judge Pauley was the one selected to handle the James Giffen Kazakh oil bribe case, which dragged on for years and years mainly over Giffen’s claim that he was acting on behalf of the CIA and US Intelligence Community and was thus entitled to masses of classified documents. In the end, Giffen did not appear to get to introduce much of the evidence he claimed, but the case ended with the barest of wrist-slaps for Giffen (aside from his huge legal costs).
Pauley thus should probably be considered “one of them” — the mostly faceless, unofficial intelligence elite who somewhere along the line got their tickets punched to handle classified matters. His ruling may be not so much a liberal/conservative outcome as a self-serving bit of case law handed up by one of the spook world’s own minions. How convenient.
“Reasonableness” will be whatever they decide they want to do. I believe it’s past time to go back to the Constitution as written.
The black robed criminals strike again......
The ACLU is going to be placed in an interesting situation now.
Here in the south we say, “Ihurddat”. Deaf southerners say, “Isawdat”.
“Ultimately a question of reasonableness” is actually written in the Constitution.
It is just written in invisible ink so only the elite among us can see it.
It would be reasonable for me not pay income tax.
find a couple misguided or corrupted judges (not saying anything about this guy who I don’t know), and
the IslamoNazi administration can ram through any kind of oppression it wants
our Constitutional liberties are disposable,
three more years....
pray for America!
Ihurddat is more universal than yall might think.
Im out on the far left coast and I hear it spoken quite often.
Another judge who hates the Constitution and wouldn’t know it if it introduced itself.
Oh I know. But do the west coat deaf people say Isawdat?