Posted on 10/08/2005 12:53:12 PM PDT by LurkedLongEnough
(Washington-AP, Updated 7:50 PM) _ Connecticut libraries lost an emergency Supreme Court appeal on Friday in their effort to be freed from a gag order and participate in a congressional debate over the Patriot Act.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg denied the appeal and offered an unusually detailed explanation of her decision.
Ginsburg said the American Civil Liberties Union had made reasonable arguments on behalf of its client, identified in a filing as the Library Connection, an association of libraries in Connecticut.
However, Ginsburg said that the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals should be given time to consider whether the Patriot Act, and its requirement of secrecy in records demands, is unconstitutional as applied to the libraries.
"A decision of that moment warrants cautious review," she said.
The ACLU, with backing from the American Library Association, argued that a gag order prevents its client from taking part in debate on Capitol Hill about the Patriot Act, which was passed shortly after the 2001 terror attacks. Some key provisions expire at the end of the year.
A federal judge said that the gag order on the libraries had silenced people "whose voices are particularly important in an ongoing national debate about the intrusion of governmental authority into individual lives."
The 2nd circuit put the decision on hold, and Ginsburg was asked to intervene. In turning down that request, Ginsburg said she expected the appeals court to hear arguments in the government's appeal and rule "with appropriate care and dispatch." Arguments are Nov. 2.
The case could still return to the Supreme Court.
The Patriot Act authorized expanded surveillance of terror suspects, increased use of material witness warrants to hold suspects incommunicado and secret proceedings in immigration cases.
Much of the Supreme Court appeal, filed earlier this week, was classified and blacked out. The Bush administration's published response consisted of blank pages. A filing by the American Library Association and other groups included some details, as did Ginsburg's seven-page opinion.
She said that the library association member received an FBI demand for records but was told that it would be illegal to tell anyone about it. The group sued on free-speech grounds so that it could take part "in the current debate -- both in Congress and among the public -- regarding proposed revisions to the Patriot Act," according to Ginsburg.
Federal prosecutors have maintained that secrecy about records demands is necessary to keep from alerting suspects and jeopardizing terrorism investigations.
Ann Beeson, the ACLU lawyer handling the case, said Friday that they would continue their legal fight.
"Ultimately, we believe that this broad power, which allows the government to seize library and Internet records without judicial authorization, is unconstitutional and offensive to American democracy," she said.
The emergency appeal was filed with Ginsburg because she handles cases from the 2nd Circuit.
The case is Doe v. Gonzales, 05-A295.
Maybe because they feel that a terrorist could be tomorrow anyone who is against the federal government taking over more and more control of our lives and activities.
Do not give up liberty for security...for you will get neither if you do.
Yeah, like NAMBLA.
If the ACLU supports it, I'm against it.
The road to security is a fine line that is for sure. At what level of activity does one literally contradict the very body of laws we have in place that are supposed to assure our freedom of privacy. Hopefully the SC shall have the wisdom to decide on such cases taking in account security for all verse freedom for individuals. Quite frankly an impossible win/win situation.
I basically agree with you. I'm just wondering.
I guess my question really is: What makes librarians different than anyone else who was asked to provide the FBI with information about any person under investigation?
Can others who give info to the FBI reveal it to the target?
What should be done if someone in a suspected terrorist cell is working as a librarian? (OK, that's enough for today.)
So RBG came down on the right side of this one--interesting.
Sounds to me like she just passed on a decision which is probably the way to go. If it goes back to the SC then I hope we'll see what the other eight will say.
The Patriot Act authorized expanded surveillance of terror suspects, increased use of material witness warrants to hold suspects incommunicado and secret proceedings in immigration cases.
"Ultimately, we believe that this broad power, which allows the government to seize library and Internet records without judicial authorization, is unconstitutional and offensive to American democracy," she said.
Am I missing something here? For once the SCOTUS has made a judgement I agree with.
What in the hell does civil liberties have to do with protecting terrorists?
These people need to be prosecuted for treason...
Keeping in mind the fact that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was formerly general counsel of the ACLU, does anybody else remember the vitriol that the leftists directed against Justice Scalia in an attempt to get him to recuse himself from ruling on the dispute over Vice President Cheney's energy task force, merely because the two of them were guests together on a hunting vacation?
The connection between Ginsburg and the ACLU is clearly much more significant than the connection between Cheney and Scalia, but I don't recall hearing any protests from the lefties over Ginsburg hearing this appeal.
(yes, I know that the two situations are not identical, in that it appears that the ACLU was, technically, "representing" a party, and not a party itself, at least formally, but if the mere appearance of impropriety is all-important, which was the claim in the Scalia matter, then surely that should be all-important in this matter. I also know that the complaints against Scalia were bogus. My point is to remind everybody that lefties are by nature liars and hypocrites who will use any lie of convenience to advance their ugly agenda, and will discard the lie whenever they wish, with not a peep out of the "watchdogs" in the press who routinely collude with the left, but you all knew that before, didn't you).
Ginsburg went against the ACLU. This just shows that judges don't always go by personal feelings and should be a warning tha just because Miers is a pal of the President and a conservative doesn't mean her constitutional approach will always be in line with his.
Can't have Homeland Security checking the libraries now,can we? Don't want to upset the terrorists privacy.
We need our own ACLU. This way we could distinguish between a legitimate Rights concern and file suit accordingly and anti-American, socialist BS.
"I would recommend reading Eric Hoffer."
Thanks. Perhaps as time permits.
Folks can pay for their own Internet access elsewhere.
Actually, the ACLU has had a good use.
http://www.newsandsentinel.com/news/story/108202005_new03_hunting100805.asp
Check out the story
I'm impressed that Ginsberg did what a Justice should do in this case .. refuse to intervene until the action has taken its course through the lower courts. WIth her own ACLU background, all the more credit to her.
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.