Federal Judge rules NSA surveillance unconstitutional!

ABC Radio News | 8/17/2006 | ABC Radio News

[sinkspur]

A federal district judge in Detroit has ruled that the Bush administration's NSA surveillance of phone conversations is unconstitutional.

[You Dirty Rats]

Why does the Adminstration never seem to be prepared for these things?

I wondered when some knucklehead would claim that this ruling by a Leftist judge is BUSH'S FAULT!!

The ruling just happened -- will you at least have the decency to allow the Administration time to respond before taking any more cheap shots?

You have no idea what the Administration has been doing or will do on this case. Next time think before you launch an attack.

[Mo1]

In Detroit ????

Oh Good Grief

[mewzilla]

Here's something else to throw in the mix. I just ran across this little legal whatever it is...

Inter arma salient leges, which translates as In times of war, the laws are silent. What's the deal with that?

[Mo1]

Why Detroit?

I think we all know the answer to that one

[newfreep]

LOL!!! I really enjoyed gore's daughter and her moving "assets".

But for the life of me, I can't figure out who are the sailor and woman he's kissing?

[SE Mom]

Heard on FOX a few minutes ago that they're reading it over at the White House- and can't make heads nor tails of the ruling...said it's confusing and all over the place..

[EBH]

Who argued this case against the ACLU?

[hipaatwo]

Ping to post 157. My eyes are now crossed!

[stan_sipple]

Right they are called kirpans. there were some cases i remember in canada and michigan where middle eastern immigrants insisted on the right to carry these weapons because they were religious symbols.

[truthluva]

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers...

Well there ya go! Sounds like the usual suspects.

[FreedomNeocon]

Wonder if that colorful constituency up there in Detroit had any effect on her?

Carter Appointment, appointed in Nov 15 1979.

[dead]

[hipaatwo]

I just got finished reading the ruling and this judge states that she's sure the plaintiffs suffered damage but she can't award them anything other than the program being suspended because "they don't have standing". If these plaintiffs didn't have standing for damage awards then they shouldn't have had standing for the case to be heard in this judge's court.
157 posted on 08/17/2006 12:56:21 PM EDT by tobyhill



WTF? Stupid ass ruling!

[redfog]

You are exactly right: President Bush should just ignore the ruling.

People seem to think that judges are the final authority on what is constitutional and what is not.

When the Constitution grants a specific power to the President (like defending the country from foreign enemies as Commander in Chief), legitimate Presidentional actions to carry out that responsibility cannot simply be waved off by the ACLU and some friendly judge.

After President Bush tells the judge to stuff it, the people ultimate decide on the constitutionality of his actions through future elections or impeachment.

[Pyro7480]

I know, I know, but most people are more familiar with "Carthago delenda est."

[Red Badger]

Juris-im-prudence.........

[metesky]

Nice link. I remember her ex-hubby, Charlie Diggs. Very interesting...

[tobyhill]

Basically it said that since the government refused to divulge secret information in public she was forced to rule the program unconstitutional even though the plaintiffs had no standing.

[SE Mom]

LOL..both of us...just NUTS.

[Mo1]

They are trying to block it for as long as they can

They know this ruling will be over turned