Patriot Act appeal fails at Supreme Court

WTNH, New Haven ^ | October 7, 2005 | AP

[LurkedLongEnough]

I just don't understand why librarians and the ACLU continue to undermine tracking down terrorists. I would venture to say that the FBI has better things to do than read random lists of library loans without a reasonably productive reason.

[Radioactive]

I just don't understand why librarians and the ACLU continue to undermine tracking down terrorists.

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.

[sinkspur]

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.

Yeah, like NAMBLA.

If the ACLU supports it, I'm against it.

[markedman]

"Ann Beeson, the ACLU lawyer handling the case..."

Is an enemy of the people of the United States of America and should be treated as such.

[Marine_Uncle]

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.

[LurkedLongEnough]

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.)

[Buck W.]

So RBG came down on the right side of this one--interesting.

[rhombus]

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.

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.

[AMERIKA]

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...

[Zeppo]

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.

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).

[jeltz25]

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.

[Cowboy Bob]

Why doesn't Ginsburg recuse herself from any case involving the ACLU?

[OldFriend]

Some of the 19 hijackers had printed their tickets/boarding passes at the library.

Can't have Homeland Security checking the libraries now,can we? Don't want to upset the terrorists privacy.

[Killborn]

We need our own ACLU. This way we could distinguish between a legitimate Rights concern and file suit accordingly and anti-American, socialist BS.

[Marine_Uncle]

"I would recommend reading Eric Hoffer."
Thanks. Perhaps as time permits.

[Mark was here]

The solution is simple. Local communities should close the librarys. Schools have their own libraries the children can use. Public libraries are just a duplication of services.

Folks can pay for their own Internet access elsewhere.

[ConvservativeVet]

Actually, the ACLU has had a good use.


http://www.newsandsentinel.com/news/story/108202005_new03_hunting100805.asp

Check out the story

[EDINVA]

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.