Judge questions telecom immunity law

[deminks]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

(02-23) 17:32 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge in San Francisco is raising questions about the constitutionality of a law designed to dismiss suits against telecommunications companies accused of cooperating with government wiretapping.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker has asked President Obama's Justice Department to present its views by Wednesday on whether the law gives the attorney general too much power to decide whether a company is immune from lawsuits. Obama supported the measure as a senator when Congress approved it last year.

Department spokesman Charles Miller declined to discuss the administration's response before Wednesday's filing. But Obama's vote for the bill last summer, and statements by Attorney General Eric Holder at his confirmation hearing last month, indicate the department will defend the law.

Walker is presiding over lawsuits in which telecommunications companies' customers have accused the firms of illegally sharing their telephone and e-mail records with federal agents.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/0... ;feed=rss.bayarea

---

Sooooooooooo, immunity is not such a done deal?

[PSPS]

1. I guess we'll see if Obama gives us change or "change."

So far, I've been seeing far too many things in the "change" column. For example:

Afghanistan continues

Renditions continue

Hiding/defending torture continues

[L. Coyote]

2. Indeed.

Look at Obama's top contributors. High on the list is the law firm defending Bush criminals!! Where the Obamas worked.

[TheWraith]

5. Care to provide some proof of that.

'Cause gee, there can't possibly be any non-nefarious reason for a law firm where the Obamas used to work to have a lot of people donating to Obama's campaign!

[L. Coyote]

11. Sure! #9 = Sidley Austin LLP = $565,788

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=200...

[TheWraith]

21. I meant the other part, when you pulled a Bush connection out of your...

As I said--shock of shocks if someone's former co-workers contributed to their presidential campaign. And seriously, do you really believe $500k would sway somebody's opinion in a race that cost $600 million? That's like 0.08% of all Obama's fundraising.

[TheWraith]

6. Please. If you're going to make shit up, then you're just looking for reasons to be "outraged." nt

[biopowertoday]

7. and the Bush WH missing emails are ok with our new WH also.

[pasto76]

13. you know what, this instant action craze is bullshit

Obama's been in office a month! He was smart enough to beat McCain by 9 million voters. He is smart enough to direct the resurrection of our economy. He is smart enough to reinforce the troops in Afghanistan - you know, where the bad guys really are.

3 years, 11 months left, at least! people like you are going to be our own worst enemy. Change in Washington, in foreign policy, in national security, you know, big important stuff, needs to be done with deliberation. Not the haste people like you are screaming for!

I trust this guy. I trust him enough to RE-enlist and expose myself and my family to another deployment. I trust him to not piss my life away.

I trust him to repair the foundations of the Constitution that has been attacked for 8 years.

And yes, if THIS president upholds a controversial policy the began in the CLinton years, and persisted under Bush, then I TRUST him that there is a reason, for now. And I liek having that trust back in my civilian leadership!

You know, like maybe in a year, if he isnt producing anything, I might start to voice some irritation too.

SGT PASTO

[jberryhill]

14. What? Are you crazy?

You mean that an administration should engage in deliberate analysis of legal issues and maintain the interim status quo instead of acting rashly on a knee-jerk reaction?

Why... that would be, uh, change.

[defendandprotect]

17. "You trust him" . . . so therefore we should all "trust him" . . .!!???

What difference does it possibly make that Obama has only been in office a month???

What are you talking about??? He has made appointments which will be with us for years!!!

Those are made -- finished!!! Finito!!!

Smart .... ?

to bail out failing capitalism over and again??? That's smart?
$8.5 TRILLION with another $2-3 TRILLION more to go??? That's smart?

And what you're saying here . . .
He is smart enough to reinforce the troops in Afghanistan - you know, where the bad guys really are.

is that we've been in Afghanistan 7+ years and we still haven't found the "bad guys"????

Terrorism doesn't have a nation -- it has to be hunted down by intelligence operatives.

That is, you can't bomb all of Mississippi to catch a few thousand KKK members!

The British were defeated in Afghanistan -- the Russians whom we baited into Afghanistan were

defeated there. We seem to be there especially for Opium!

Trust whomever YOU want, but rest assured that we will all use our own intelligence to

trust or distrust those who we think warrant it!

[jaysunb]

19. HOW DARE YOU !

Coming around here making sense. Don't you know that this is the age of instant gratification and such ?
Come on. get with it.

BTW, welcome to DU

[Two Americas]

20. yes!

I think that if a person is smart enough, that they should be installed as a totalitarian ruler and we should all defer to them and never question them.

Trust! I think the founding fathers talked about that - "the people should be ever-trusting of those in power."

Damned liberal activist judges...

[Supersedeas]

3. this will be worth watching

[Prospero1]

4. I'm no lawyer but....

as I understand it you cannot override the constitution by statute. It seems to me the immunity law has the effect of neutralizing the 4th amendment. Never mind damages, if you can't sue how does one get the offender to "cease and desist" ? Very disappointing inaction so far from the new DOJ.

[Piewhacket]

12. umm.... heres an idea...

you ordinarily can't override the constitution by federal statute, that is
basically so. The constitution is the higher law so if there is a conflict
the statute must fall. I think you have that basically right.

and of course there must always be some way to sue the government and get them to
cease and desist from violating the constitution, that is also true. otherwise
there would be no rule of law at all, the constitution would be brought to naught.
so that point is sound also.

but it does not necessarily follow the constitution says you may sue the US for
damages if the US executive breaks the law. it also does not follow that you may
sue the phone company who is acting as the governments agent for money damages.
These actions are routine, that is also true, but they are also authorized by statute.

the FISA immunity provisions must be looked at carefully by a skilled judge, to see if
they offend the constitution. it isn't slam dunk whether they do, but Walker seems
a capable judge and alert. Here is a preview of the judge's thinking.
(32K PDF) http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/ordersupp21109_0....

[midnight]

16. FISA immunity provides a shield to prevent those who have

had their communications violated the chance of seeing this evidence, and therefore preventing any justice. The Constitution does not say you may sue anyone that I know of, but people sue and win large sums. I'm not a skilled judge, but I know bull shit when I hear it.


"None but a few government insiders knows what they’ve got, who gets to look at it, what becomes of it. And because the FISA revision bill gives the telecoms immunity from lawsuits, we may never know the extent of this illegal spying. More important, we won't know how our private information becomes misinterpreted and misused – that is, used against us, without us knowing why or being able to do anything about it." http://firedoglake.com/2008/07/09/the-fisa-travesty-is-... /

[Piewhacket]

8. Yesssss..... Walker on the job. (Knew he was).

Its gonna be a tough and courageous call....

whoa... popcorn.!

[Pastiche423]

9. There goes our Mr. Change!

In actuality, it's Mr. Bullshit.

[DissedByBush]

10. My money is on Obama continuing this Bush policy

Why not since he's been continuing in a couple of other bad ones too.

*sigh*

Where's my change?!

patience, patience, it's only been a month...

[Wizard777]

15. There are many good reasons to invalidate the law. The article gives one I hadn't though of.

The President cannot make law. At least outside of a declaration of martial law. Which he didn't do.

[defendandprotect]

18. FISA law in its original form is already a violation of our Constitution .. ..

in this further diluted form it is simply a greater violation of our Constitution --- !!!