Posted on 04/07/2014 9:15:07 AM PDT by xzins
The US Supreme Court is chickening out and taking a step back from the entire NSA scandal. Rather than making a final decision on whether the bulk telephone metadata surveillance program is constitutional, the Supreme Court has decided to decline the case.
Instead, the Court has now left lower courts to contradict each other over the legality of this particular NSA surveillance program. One court, for instance, has described the metadata program as an “almost-Orwellian” effort.
In fact, this particular petition brought to the Supreme Court concerns precisely a decision given out by US District Judge Richard Leon, who also wrote that in his opinion, America’s founding fathers would be aghast at the spying practices.
Political activist Larry Klayman skipped the Appeal Court and went straight to the Supreme Court, saying that this is a case of imperative public importance, so it should immediately get the attention of the highest court. It should be mentioned that the Supreme Court doesn’t normally pick out cases before they go to the Federal Appeal Court.
The decision to ignore this particular case comes just before the White House is expected to come up with a series of more drastic reforms for the National Security Agency. So far, these reforms have extended to restricting the NSA’s access to the records and having a third party hold them rather than the agency itself, as if that will fix the issue generated by the initial collection.
Most people don’t really expect big changes in the way the United States conducts surveillance considering its weak response thus far and clear unwillingness to make any real changes.
The future of the telephony metadata collection program will most likely be decided by politicians rather than judges. There are several important bills awaiting in Congress, including some that will considerably cut down on NSA’s surveillance powers.
The intelligence community has been lobbying the Congress not to pass the bill, but social pressure might eventually pay off and the bills could still pass.
One of these bills has been written by Jim Sensenbrenner, the same man who wrote the Patriot Act, which the NSA uses to hide behind whenever it explains why a certain surveillance program is legal. Sensenbrenner now wants to set things right and make sure there’s no loophole to be used by the intelligence agencies.
That says it all. It's a clear 4th amendment case.
Too many intercepted messages, I suppose, among the 9 justices.
This court needs to deal with this. Maybe next year with a different case. They had no problem jumping in to cases about the treatment of foreign prisoners at us facilities in the Bush years and helped sort out allowable and disallowed practices. The same should be true here. Lines need to be drawn and the bureaucracy is not doing it effectively.
“You take this case and we will spill the beans about X, Y, and Z....”
The Supreme Court is OWNED!!! Obamacare taught us this valuable lesson...
Can’t blame them. Can you imagine the crap the NSA has collected about them? Everyone is in fear of the nsa, congress and the preezy included.
Obviously, the majority on our pathetic SOTUS has something to hide. At least this avoids the embarrassment of having Chief Wimp Roberts issue another blatantly unconstitutional ruling as in the ObamaCare tax debacle.
The 4th paragraph in the article says it all ... SCOTUS normally doesn’t accept cases that haven’t gone through the lower courts. Wouldn’t read anything more into it than that.
That kind of threat is not only very real, given the Petraeus case, but it is a reason this case should be heard, so that such legitimate accusations could be put to rest. The NSA can operate as a secret police, so they MUST be held to a higher standard.
When the nation has a secret police, then thoughts of abuse and conspiracy are not illogical or irrational. They are completely valid questions.
Rand Paul has this right. I’m not with Paul on a number of his positions — especially amnesty — but he is right on the 4th amendment. There must be a warrant and it must be for EACH American citizen listened to while they are in the 50 states.
I agree with Klayman.
This is the 4th amendment. Scotus is the arbiter of the constitution. This is of immediate, national importance. Violations are happening as we type.
They know Obama and the NSA are on to all their dirty little secrets.
No reason to actually render a decision backing the NSA when they can accomplish the same thing this way.
SCOTUS has failed to do it’s job. Fine, it’s on the American People now. They better not say a word when the poop starts flying.
“Too many intercepted messages, I suppose, among the 9 justices.”
One can only imagine the files on the Supremes that NSA,FBI, IRS, CIA, DEA, ATF and -—* have in their computers.
* fill in the 3 letter blank for any omitted snoop agency.
Roberts was the worst mistake Bush ever made.
Yes, they are very reluctant to set Constitutional precedent on anything other than a thoroughly developed record. And that's the way it should be.
How can it possibly hurt to order that the 4th amendment must be followed?
Roberts fooled all of us
Agreed that Roberts has turned out to be a disaster.
But Bush’s worst appointment by far was David Souter—now fortunately retired.
How can they get away with this?
The Supreme Court is like a referee on a football field. The Congress, the President, the state police, and other government officials are the players. Some can pass laws, and others can enforce laws. But all exercise power within certain boundaries. These boundaries are set by the Constitution. As the “referee” in the U.S. system of government, it is the Supreme Court’s job to say when government officials step out-of-bounds.
Souter was appointed by Bush Sr.
The problem with Roberts is that he’ll probably be the chief justice for the next 30 years.
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.