What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Court Backs Terrorist Surveillance Program

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Another loss for the terrorists and for the kook left. The Carter appointed Judge who ruled the program was illegal was reversed, and some sanity returned to the fighting of terrorism




Court backs Bush's spying
By Jerry Seper
July 7, 2007
A federal appeals court panel in Cincinnati yesterday dismissed a lawsuit challenging President Bush's domestic terrorist surveillance program, ruling that those who brought the suit — led by the American Civil Liberties Union — did not have the legal authority to do so.

In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit panel did not rule on the legality of the surveillance program but vacated a 2006 order by a lower court in Detroit that found the post-September 11 program to be unconstitutional, violating rights to privacy and free speech and the separation of powers.

The majority opinion was written by Appeals Court Judge Alice Moore Batchelder, who recently was considered by Mr. Bush as a potential nominee for a U.S. Supreme Court seat that ultimately went to Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. She was named to the bench by the first President Bush in June 1991.

Judge Batchelder was joined by Appeals Court Judge Julie Smith Gibbons, named to the bench in 2002 by Mr. Bush.

Both said the plaintiffs had failed to show they were subject to the surveillance.

The dissenting vote was cast by Appeals Court Judge Ronald Lee Gilman, nominated to the bench in 1997 by President Clinton, who said the plaintiffs were within their rights to sue and it was clear to him the program violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

The case will be sent back to U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit for dismissal.

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called the ruling "disappointing."

for the complete article

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070707/NATION/107070048/1001
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
50,482
Reaction score
12,396
Points
2,190
Location
North Carolina
Actually as I understand it the losing side can now request that the entire 6th circuit review and rule on the matter. It is only "over" and "sanity" returned if the people that brought the case agree it is over, as I understand it.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Actually as I understand it the losing side can now request that the entire 6th circuit review and rule on the matter. It is only "over" and "sanity" returned if the people that brought the case agree it is over, as I understand it.

Oh, it will go to the SC - where the sanity will prevail

At least Pres Bush got it right with his picks to the Court
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
61,072
Reaction score
18,800
Points
2,290
Location
Maine
Good Morning RSR! :)

That is a very misleading headline imho.

Because, the Court did not back domestic spying.

What the court said is that before a lawsuit could be sought or determined, proof of the government spying on an individual has to be present.

This just encourages every hacker out there, to find "such proof" by digging in to the communication company's files, imo. They better tighten up their own security, the government better too! If they don't want another lawsuit, with actual facts/proof, showing up down the road, again, imo.

I personally don't understand their ruling? It reminds me of the Bush v Gore ruling, they agreed that there should be a statewide recount, but then only gave 2 hours for this to take place? :question:
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Good Morning RSR! :)

That is a very misleading headline imho.

Because, the Court did not back domestic spying.

What the court said is that before a lawsuit could be sought or determined, proof of the government spying on an individual has to be present.

This just encourages every hacker out there, to find "such proof" by digging in to the communication company's files, imo. They better tighten up their own security, the government better too! If they don't want another lawsuit, with actual facts/proof, showing up down the road, again, imo.

I personally don't understand their ruling? It reminds me of their Bush v Gore ruling, they agreed that there should be a statewide recount, but then only gave 2 hours for this to take place? :question:

Care

Good Morning Care


The Pres Peanut Judge ignored the law and ruled based on her personal opinions

This case should never have seen the inside of a court room to begin with and the Pres has every right to do what he is doing

For some reason, the left thinks terrorists have the right to plot their attacks in private and not have the US listen to their phone calls

Cre, Al lost Fl - please get over it. It has been more then 6 years - let it go
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
50,482
Reaction score
12,396
Points
2,190
Location
North Carolina
Good Morning RSR! :)

That is a very misleading headline imho.

Because, the Court did not back domestic spying.

What the court said is that before a lawsuit could be sought or determined, proof of the government spying on an individual has to be present.

This just encourages every hacker out there, to find "such proof" by digging in to the communication company's files, imo. They better tighten up their own security, the government better too! If they don't want another lawsuit, with actual facts/proof, showing up down the road, again, imo.

I personally don't understand their ruling? It reminds me of their Bush v Gore ruling, they agreed that there should be a statewide recount, but then only gave 2 hours for this to take place? :question:

Care

I have explained to you before why the Court made the ruling in 2000. The federal law requires that the Electors to the Electoral College be certified by a set day. The ruling had to take that into account. There was NO TIME to finish a recount in time for Certification. The Florida Supreme Court knew that when they made their ruling. It was an attempt by Gore to disenfranchise the entire State of Florida.

With out Florida's Electors he had the majority of Electors in the College. He was hoping that he would then win because of that.
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
61,072
Reaction score
18,800
Points
2,290
Location
Maine
I have explained to you before why the Court made the ruling in 2000. The federal law requires that the Electors to the Electoral College be certified by a set day. The ruling had to take that into account. There was NO TIME to finish a recount in time for Certification. The Florida Supreme Court knew that when they made their ruling. It was an attempt by Gore to disenfranchise the entire State of Florida.

With out Florida's Electors he had the majority of Electors in the College. He was hoping that he would then win because of that.

No. The Supreme Court had NO BUSINESS to make a decision based on that political reason.

NONE!

WHY?

Because writen in to Florida was was THAT precise thing, HOW this State was to handle a situation like this....and if electoral votes were not to go to congress cuz of a cutoff, then that WAS the law, and should not have been part of their decision...and I am not even certain it was part of their VOCAL decision, maybe "behind the scenes".

The Supreme Court had NO RIGHT to change what Florida Legislators wrote in to the Law.

In addition to THIS, PREVIOUSLY in USA history, I believe it was the state of Hawaii, came upon the same situation, where due to recounts, their electors missed their cut off to get the electoral votes to Washington AND washington made the exception and took their electoral votes in, because there was still a few weeks before those electoral votes had to be counted and recorded.

So, just plain right wing spin on that issue imho. :D
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
50,482
Reaction score
12,396
Points
2,190
Location
North Carolina
No. The Supreme Court had NO BUSINESS to make a decision based on that political reason.

NONE!

WHY?

Because writen in to Florida was was THAT precise thing, HOW this State was to handle a situation like this....and if electoral votes were not to go to congress cuz of a cutoff, then that WAS the law, and should not have been part of their decision...and I am not even certain it was part of their VOCAL decision, maybe "behind the scenes".

The Supreme Court had NO RIGHT to change what Florida Legislators wrote in to the Law.

In addition to THIS, PREVIOUSLY in USA history, I believe it was the state of Hawaii, came upon the same situation, where due to recounts, their electors missed their cut off to get the electoral votes to Washington AND washington made the exception and took their electoral votes in, because there was still a few weeks before those electoral votes had to be counted and recorded.

So, just plain right wing spin on that issue imho. :D

It was a LEGAL Federal Issue once the Florida Supreme Court ignored their own laws and made a ruling designed to thwart the will of the voters.
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
61,072
Reaction score
18,800
Points
2,290
Location
Maine
It was a LEGAL Federal Issue once the Florida Supreme Court ignored their own laws and made a ruling designed to thwart the will of the voters.

Where is it given authority, in the Constitution, to be involved in a State, election issue? I don't think it is...

ANDDDDDDD, :D, it is the Republicans from day 1, that tried to disenfranchise legitimate voters in Florida, and legitimate votes, of the ones that actually GOT to vote!!!

But anyway, I did not mean to bait you, and get this thread off topic of Domestic Spying!

and Good Morning RetSgt! Don't know what i WOULD DO, if I didn't have you out there to argue with on some of the partisan issues! :thup:

Care
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
50,482
Reaction score
12,396
Points
2,190
Location
North Carolina
Where is it given authority, in the Constitution, to be involved in a State, election issue? I don't think it is...

ANDDDDDDD, :D, it is the Republicans from day 1, that tried to disenfranchise legitimate voters in Florida, and legitimate votes, of the ones that actually GOT to vote!!!

But anyway, I did not mean to bait you, and get this thread off topic of Domestic Spying!

and Good Morning RetSgt! Don't know what i WOULD DO, if I didn't have you out there to argue with on some of the partisan issues! :thup:

Care

It was a FEDERAL Election, the rights of the Citizenry are protected now by the Constitution even against State action, perhaps you have never read the 14th and 15th amendment? Nor the plethora of rulings made since they were passed as to the broadened power of the Constitution in protecting the rights enumerated in that document?
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,854
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
No. The Supreme Court had NO BUSINESS to make a decision based on that political reason.

NONE!

WHY?

Because writen in to Florida was was THAT precise thing, HOW this State was to handle a situation like this....and if electoral votes were not to go to congress cuz of a cutoff, then that WAS the law, and should not have been part of their decision...and I am not even certain it was part of their VOCAL decision, maybe "behind the scenes".

The Supreme Court had NO RIGHT to change what Florida Legislators wrote in to the Law.

In addition to THIS, PREVIOUSLY in USA history, I believe it was the state of Hawaii, came upon the same situation, where due to recounts, their electors missed their cut off to get the electoral votes to Washington AND washington made the exception and took their electoral votes in, because there was still a few weeks before those electoral votes had to be counted and recorded.

So, just plain right wing spin on that issue imho. :D

Also written into the rules in FL are votes not procedurally/administratively correct are just not counted. Following THAT rule would have precluded the rest of this nonsense.
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
Another loss for the terrorists and for the kook left. The Carter appointed Judge who ruled the program was illegal was reversed, and some sanity returned to the fighting of terrorism




Court backs Bush's spying
By Jerry Seper
July 7, 2007
A federal appeals court panel in Cincinnati yesterday dismissed a lawsuit challenging President Bush's domestic terrorist surveillance program, ruling that those who brought the suit — led by the American Civil Liberties Union — did not have the legal authority to do so.

In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit panel did not rule on the legality of the surveillance program but vacated a 2006 order by a lower court in Detroit that found the post-September 11 program to be unconstitutional, violating rights to privacy and free speech and the separation of powers.

The majority opinion was written by Appeals Court Judge Alice Moore Batchelder, who recently was considered by Mr. Bush as a potential nominee for a U.S. Supreme Court seat that ultimately went to Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. She was named to the bench by the first President Bush in June 1991.

Judge Batchelder was joined by Appeals Court Judge Julie Smith Gibbons, named to the bench in 2002 by Mr. Bush.

Both said the plaintiffs had failed to show they were subject to the surveillance.

The dissenting vote was cast by Appeals Court Judge Ronald Lee Gilman, nominated to the bench in 1997 by President Clinton, who said the plaintiffs were within their rights to sue and it was clear to him the program violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

The case will be sent back to U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit for dismissal.

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called the ruling "disappointing."

for the complete article

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070707/NATION/107070048/1001

A case seeking to challenge the Bush administration's domestic wiretapping program was dismissed yesterday as the plaintiff's "...could not show injury direct and concrete enough to allow them to have standing to sue...". Why couldn't they demonstrate this? Simple, actually...The list of those surveilled remains "classified".

And this is the crux of the situation. The Bush administration can hide its illegal activities behind the veil of "national security" thus denying any possibility of judicial review or the ability of Americans to challenge the legality of the surveillance of phone calls and e-mails.

To violate the law and hide that violation behind a wall of secrecy, then declare that wall unbreachable by the the the Judicial or Legislative branches...If this doesn't fall into the category of "High crimes and misdemeanors", what does?

For the full story, go <a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/07/washington/07nsa.html?_r=1&th=&oref=slogin&emc=th&pagewanted=print>HERE</a>.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Where is it given authority, in the Constitution, to be involved in a State, election issue? I don't think it is...

ANDDDDDDD, :D, it is the Republicans from day 1, that tried to disenfranchise legitimate voters in Florida, and legitimate votes, of the ones that actually GOT to vote!!!

But anyway, I did not mean to bait you, and get this thread off topic of Domestic Spying!

and Good Morning RetSgt! Don't know what i WOULD DO, if I didn't have you out there to argue with on some of the partisan issues! :thup:

Care



Care, Al lost

Even when the liberal media did their own recount - Al lost

He could not even carry his own home state on TN

He tried to have the votes of the US military tossed out

Give it up - as libs told Republicnas about Bill - please move on
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
Oh, it will go to the SC - where the sanity will prevail

At least Pres Bush got it right with his picks to the Court

So Bush picked members of the SCOTUS to back his undermining of the Constitution?

And given that you get your notions of sanity from FOX Noise, it's little wonder you view the illegal wire-tapping of US citizens to be a 'sane' policy.
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
Good Morning Care


The Pres Peanut Judge ignored the law and ruled based on her personal opinions

This case should never have seen the inside of a court room to begin with and the Pres has every right to do what he is doing

For some reason, the left thinks terrorists have the right to plot their attacks in private and not have the US listen to their phone calls

Cre, Al lost Fl - please get over it. It has been more then 6 years - let it go

With your vast and breath taking knowledge of the law and the legal system, you can, perhaps, provide us with some documentation to support that assertion?
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
So Bush picked members of the SCOTUS to back his undermining of the Constitution?

And given that you get your notions of sanity from FOX Noise, it's little wonder you view the illegal wire-tapping of US citizens to be a 'sane' policy.

I already know BP you are in full support of protecting the rights of terrorists to plot their attacks in total privacy without the US government tapping their phones
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
With your vast and breath taking knowledge of the law and the legal system, you can, perhaps, provide us with some documentation to support that assertion?

Her conflict of interest for one thing

Thursday, August 24, 2006
Why do judges make it easier for their critics?
The NYT has an editorial about the controversy that has boiled up connecting Judge Anna Diggs Taylor to the ACLU, the party she summarily handed a victory to in ACLU v. NSA.

t would have been prudent for her to disclose any activity that might conceivably raise questions about her ability to be impartial. Regrettably, it was left to a conservative group, Judicial Watch, to point out her role as a trustee to a foundation that had given grants to a branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, a plaintiff in the case....

Judge Taylor’s role at a grant-making foundation whose list of beneficiaries includes groups that regularly litigate in the courts is still disquieting — and, even worse, it is not all that unusual for a member of the judiciary. The most important lesson here may be the wisdom of re-examining the sort of outside activities that are appropriate for sitting federal judges.
I don't understand why judges don't steer clear of anything that can be used against them like this. Well, to dredge up yesterday's paper -- the one with my op-ed in it -- I don't understand why judges don't swaddle their opinions -- whether result-oriented or not -- in very professional, neutral-sounding verbiage. Why make it easier for your critics?
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/08/why-do-judges-make-it-easier-for-their.html


How do you like your crow BP?
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
61,072
Reaction score
18,800
Points
2,290
Location
Maine
Also written into the rules in FL are votes not procedurally/administratively correct are just not counted. Following THAT rule would have precluded the rest of this nonsense.
that depends Gunny.

At least I think so.

I believe that, it depends on the intent of the Legislature when they created the law, and this could be found out by vote transcripts and any other peices writen by the Senators and House about it.

And I believe it also would depend on how previous State rulings regarding the issues at hand had set precedence, in previous elections.

If the intent of the law, for example, was more of a guideline for the elections, allowing individual county decision making, as with the Florida Law,

but writen in a manner that implied that every citizen had a right for their vote to count and every thinkable measure to assure this at the time the Law was originally writen, (Even if hanging chads were not the issue back when it was originally writen),

were put in to the original election law implying, 'every measure should be taken to get the citizen's rightful vote to count', and precedent had been set, then maybe it is not as iron clad as you think.

I guess I would have to see the law that dictates what you said, and then see if any court cases had come up, with rulings involving that law, before conceding that you may be right. lol :eusa_dance:

Care
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Even the liberal media, after doing their own recount, said Pres Bush won Florida

Bush still wins Florida in newspaper recount



April 4, 2001
Web posted at: 11:26 a.m. EDT (1526 GMT)

MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- If a recount of Florida's disputed votes in last year's close presidential election had been allowed to proceed by the U.S. Supreme Court, Republican George W. Bush still would have won the White House, two newspapers reported Wednesday.

The Miami Herald and USA Today conducted a comprehensive review of 64,248 "undercounted" ballots in Florida's 67 counties that ended last month.

Their count showed that Bush's razor-thin margin of 537 votes -- certified in December by the Florida Secretary of State's office -- would have tripled to 1,665 votes if counted according to standards advocated by his Democratic rival, former Vice President Al Gore.

"In the end, I think we probably confirmed that President Bush should have been president of the United States," said Mark Seibel, the paper's managing editor. "I think that it was worthwhile because so many people had questions about how the ballots had been handled and how the process had worked."

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/04/04/florida.recount.01/index.html
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
61,072
Reaction score
18,800
Points
2,290
Location
Maine
It was a FEDERAL Election, the rights of the Citizenry are protected now by the Constitution even against State action, perhaps you have never read the 14th and 15th amendment? Nor the plethora of rulings made since they were passed as to the broadened power of the Constitution in protecting the rights enumerated in that document?

Haven't gotten that far, I have only gotten to the 8th Amendment, on my self imposed refresher course! :D
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$95.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top