Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. justices reject call to review intelligence court action on phone records
Reuters ^ | November 18, 2013 | Lawrence Hurley

Posted on 11/18/2013 10:59:31 AM PST by EveningStar

The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday it would not review a ruling by a secretive intelligence court that authorized government access to millions of Verizon Communications Inc (VZ.N) phone-call records.

(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: epic; intelligence; nsa; scotus; verizon
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-25 last
To: OneWingedShark
Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.

The "cases and controversies" language of the 1st paragraph prohibits federal courts from rendering decisions where the parties don't have a dog in the hunt, while the 2nd paragraph limits the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to the types of cases enumerated.

21 posted on 11/21/2013 5:26:40 AM PST by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky
The Petitioner was unable to allege any standing to bring the Petition.

This is how the scam works -- the government spies on you in secret, and issues a gag order to prevent anyone who knows about the spying from talking about it. That way, if you don't know that you're being spied on, you can't complain (because you don't know that you have cause for complaint); if you do know that you're being spied on, you can't complain (because you'd be Gitmoized for violating the gag order). Win-win for the jackboots; lose-lose for the Constitution.

22 posted on 11/21/2013 9:09:28 AM PST by kobald
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky
Ah, but it says this:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.
And the ACA is binding upon the states, therefore the States must be a party. (And in this case, so are the federal government, and the peoples of the states as well.)
23 posted on 11/21/2013 11:32:26 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: kobald
Your privacy is violated only if you know about it.

See this article.
Or, more humorously, Colbert Savages NSA and Rep. Mike Rogers in 'See No Evil' Segment.

24 posted on 11/21/2013 11:40:24 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Except no state was a party, either as plaintiff or defendant, in the action the Court declined to hear.


25 posted on 11/21/2013 11:47:04 AM PST by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-25 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson