HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Supreme Court blocks chal...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:39 AM

Supreme Court blocks challenge to anti-terrorism law

Source: USA Today

WASHINGTON -- One of the most controversial anti-terrorism laws passed in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks may be beyond normal judicial review, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

In a 5-4 decision, the court's conservative justices ruled that lawyers, journalists, human rights activists and others lacked standing to challenge a law passed in 2008 that increases the government's ability to intercept international communications.

The plaintiffs had contended that even the potential of government snooping which, they said, would violate the Fourth Amendment was forcing them to change the way they communicate with clients and sources.

The question before the high court wasn't whether the law itself, passed near the end of the Bush administration, was constitutional. It was whether those challenging it even had the ability to find out.

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/02/26/supreme-court-wiretapping-surveillance-foreign-intelligence/1948569/

7 replies, 1861 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 7 replies Author Time Post
Reply Supreme Court blocks challenge to anti-terrorism law (Original post)
IDemo Feb 2013 OP
TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #1
Kelvin Mace Feb 2013 #3
msanthrope Feb 2013 #5
nineteen50 Feb 2013 #2
Comrade Grumpy Feb 2013 #4
DallasNE Feb 2013 #6
LineNew Reply .
blkmusclmachine Feb 2013 #7

Response to IDemo (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:42 AM

1. Who has the legal standing to challenge it, then?

Edit to add: I guess someone would have to prove their rights were violated?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:19 PM

3. Kafka is lying in his grave

very confused.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:35 PM

5. Someone who has had their rights violated. I say this after only reading

the article..not the decision, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IDemo (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:51 AM

2. That

other race of persons the corporate person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IDemo (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:35 PM

4. We've gone through the looking glass. It's Malice in Terrorland.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IDemo (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 02:06 PM

6. This Stands On Its Head

The notion that we have 3 co-equal branches of government when there is no oversight of the executive branch when it comes to foreign surveillance. Abuse will be the predictable outcome of this decision and it will haunt the court to have this blood on their hands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IDemo (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 03:54 AM

7. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread