I'd be interested in your takes on this column.
He's neither "nitwit" nor "liberal". Well, maybe "liberal" in the 1950's sense.
just because a Republican appointed him doesn't mean he's not a liberal. You can't always tell what's going to happen to a judge once he gets on the bench. Sometimes they turn pinko like this one apparently did.
Fraudulent statement therefore the assumption put forward in the case is fraudulent. Using a phone network, you are on OTHER peoples property. You have no right of privacy. By this logic if you overheard two thugs talking about robbing the local gas station, you would be "invading their privacy". 2nd you are extending the right of citizenship to the non citizen side of the conversation. This mythical "individual privacy right" does not extend to a non citizen. 3rd, It perpetuates the fraud that the Govt is "listening in" to the phone calls. That is not at all what this program does. So the base of the suit and standing of the plantiffs make this a fraudulent suit from the start.
? In addition the group bringing suit have no standing to bring suit. They can point to no damage done them by the program. To have standing you have to be damaged by the action. For example, if you see a car accident, you cannot sue the driver who caused the accident. Just because you see a car accident doesn't mean you can sue. You have to actually have to be party to the accident before you have standing to bring suit. None of the various plaintiffs have standing therefore the suit should of been dismissed.
In addition, the 1st Bush appointed Souter. Are you going to try and argue Souter is a Conservative? Based on who appointed a Judge has NOTHING to do with the Judges legal philosophy.