Top Court Asked to Stop NSA Surveillance

[Hissyspit]

Source: CNN

updated 5:12 PM EDT 07.08.13

Top court asked to stop NSA surveillance

By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer

Washington (CNN) - The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to stop the National Security Agency's surveillance of domestic telephone communications data.

In an emergency appeal filed Monday, a privacy rights group claimed a secret federal court improperly authorized the government to collect the electronic records, and said only the justices could resolve the statutory issues at stake.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center filed its petition directly with the high court, bypassing the usual step of going to the lower federal courts first.

Such a move makes it much harder for the justices to intervene now, but the privacy group argues "exceptional ramifications" demand judicial review now.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/08/politics/nsa-supreme-court/index.html

[grasswire]

1. is this good, or BAD?

If the court were to hear the appeal and decide against the EPIC, then all of these current practices would be constitutional and lawful.

Not knowing anything about the EPIC, I find this very frightening.

[JDPriestly]

2. Then we would have to petition our legislature.

We shall see. The wheels of justice move slowly.

[indepat]

3. Oh ye of little faith. Surely the Supreme Court would never render an opinion that violates

the Constitution of the United States on its face. Surely no Justice would be so brazen as to be a party to such a decision.

[Agnosticsherbet]

10. The Supreme Court decides what is Constitutional...

So their decisions can not violate the Constitution since they are the only official interpreters. All the people can do is to amend the Constitution. Ultimately the 13th and 14th amendment were necessary to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857).

[indepat]

12. They've got us by the short hairs 'cause up can be down, no, yes, black, white, right, left, right,

wrong, on its face, not on its face.

[tularetom]

4. Since the secret court is a wholly owned subsidiary of the SCOTUS

there is a definite conflict of interest. The Supreme Court has a pretty good sized dog in this fight.

IMO the only constitutional way to stop this surveillance is through legislative action. Or extreme direct political pressure on the administration to knock this shit off.

[marions ghost]

5. right, how's that gonna work?

I guess it could put the SC on the spot. Maybe it's just for show.

[grasswire]

8. that's why this seems very dangerous.

Requesting that the court rule on constitutionality of the Surveillance State is very risky. Riding the ragged edge of destruction.

[Mosaic]

15. Or thinking *Positively*

It could end the surveillance state permanently. And we will all celebrate that hugely.

[grasswire]

16. I have no confidence that this SCOTUS will end the surveillance state. nt

[Agnosticsherbet]

11. Actually the Secret FISA Court was established by Congress. Congress alone determines the funcitons

and existence of all courts except the Supreme Court. So, if anyone owns the FISA Court, it is Congress who created it as written by Senator Edward Kennedy in 1977 and repeatedly amended by many Congresses since that time, overseen by Democrats and Republicans.

[tularetom]

13. Is it true that the Chief Justice of SCOTUS appoints all the judges to the FISA court?

If it is (and that's what I've heard recently) then it really isn't Congress that runs the court. It's SCOTUS, actually the SCOTUS Chief Justice that pretty much controls the FISA court.

I suppose that Congress could amend the legislation that created the court in order to transfer appointment power to the executive branch but that isn't likely to happen in the current scheme of things.

[warrprayer]

6. k&r

[Jack Rabbit]

7. Fat chance of that

Fat Tony ate the chance.

[BornLooser]

9. It will be interesting to see if the four Justices of Conference vote

to grant certiorari...or not. Doubts? Oh Yea.

[cheapdate]

14. The Roberts Court isn't going to help.

Any decision from this court will be 5-4 in favor of the government. I applaud the effort of the Electronic Privacy Information Center anyway.