Supreme Court debates privacy rights of government contractors

[alp227]

Source: CNN

Washington (CNN) -- In a spirited hour of oral arguments dealing with background security checks, the Supreme Court expressed limited sympathy Tuesday for the privacy rights of some government workers.

A majority of justices offered varying support for the government's right to conduct what it calls "mere collection of information with accompanying safeguards" for current and prospective employees, especially in sensitive or high-security workplaces.

The court is reviewing a lawsuit by 28 long-term scientists, engineers, and others at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory near Pasadena, California. The workers, who are independent contractors, claim the mandatory checks are overly intrusive -- permitting the government to obtain information on their health, finances, personal habits, and even their sex lives. All were classified as "low risk," unlikely to have a major "adverse impact" on the agency's mission.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/05/scotus.contractors.privacy/index.html

[defendandprotect]

1. Aside: Why aren't we impeaching these right wing creeps??

[24601]

2. On what grounds? Just because the Obama administration is

defending the criteria, I don't advocate impeaching Obama - it seems a bit over the top. Enforcing and defending stupid criteria (as Justice Kagan did when she was USSG) just doesn't reach the level of "high crimes & misdemeanors."

[defendandprotect]

3. They should be impeached based on Bush vs Gore ... and the recent corporate $ as

free speech decisions --

Impeach Roberts for lies -- and having run Bush's fascist rally -- GOP sponsored --

to STOP the vote counting in Miami-Dade county --

Impeach Scalia for helping Cheney to keep the secrets of "Energy meetings" -- where

Iraqi oil fields were divvied up long before 9/11 --

better yet, let's hang Scalia upside down until the ducks come flying out of his mouth!

Impeach Clarence Thomas and put him on trial for perjury at his nomination hearings --

this is a pervert who should not be on our court.

amnesia?

[24601]

4. So you're for impeaching Ginsburg, who voted with the 7-2

majority that Florida's actions violated the Constitution? This was the substantive vote. (The second vote, 5-4, vote was procedural on whether there was time to fix Florida's defect.) Just because Ginsburg sees the Constitution differently, you would impeach her? I wouldn't. What a chilling idea of the law you hold.

[defendandprotect]

6. Only YOU are suggesting that --- The final decision was a FIVE-FOUR- vote ....

The gang of 5 should be impeached -- O'Connor and Rehnquist, of course, are gone --

But Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas should be impeached --

GINSBURG DISSENTING --


531 U.S. 98 (2000) argued 11 Dec. 2000, decided 12 Dec. 2000, by vote of 5 to 4; Rehnquist for the Court, Scalia and Thomas concurring, Stevens in dissent, Ginsburg and Breyer join, dissenting, souter in dissent; Breyer, Stevens, and Ginsburg join, dissenting; Ginsburg in dissent; stevens, Souter, and Breyer join, dissenting; Breyer in dissent; Stevens, Ginsburg, and Souter join, dissenting. The accusation of partisan decision making on the U.S. Supreme Court was never more intense than in the wake of the decision in Bush v. Gore, when five conservative justices relied on innovative readings of the Constitution in order to resolve the 2000 presidential election dispute in favor of the more conservative candidate.


The recount was mandated by the Florida State Supreme Court --

If Gingsburg in any way aided the Gang of 5, she was wrong -- that's all.

And NO ONE, of course, considers Gingsburg one of the Gang of 5 --



Amazing that you're so bothered by the thought of impeaching the right wingers on the court

for this decision -- but no so much bothered by the lack of quality, a pervert -- and liars

on the court -- or religious fanatics on the court???





MEANWHILE ...

How much more "intrusive" could this information be ....

claim the mandatory checks are overly intrusive -- permitting the government to obtain information on their health, finances, personal habits, and even their sex lives. All were classified as "low risk," unlikely to have a major "adverse impact" on the agency's mission.

[24601]

7. No, what I oppose it impeaching based on ideology. And it's

incomplete to look at the 5-4 in isolation because if the court hadn't first voted 7-2 that Florida was proceeding unlawfully, there never would have been a second vote.

Equal Protection Clause
"The Supreme Court ruled 7–2 that the Florida Supreme Court's decision, calling for a statewide recount, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held the Equal Protection Clause guarantees to individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment". Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice. The record, as weighed by the Florida Supreme Court, suggested that different standards were seemingly applied to the recount from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county."

[defendandprotect]

8. 2000 wasn't "ideology" -- it was a stolen election and the SC aided and abetted that steal...!!

We had at that time a right wing SC which was an embarrassment throughout the world.

Every state has recounts -- and the Bush position also included violations of 14th

amendment as they argued two different positions in two different districts re the

military ballots! Many of the military ballots counted were illegal.

But, no one paid much attention to that because W and his team were doing it!

Again -- amazing to see anyone with confidence in the Gang of 5 that gave us 2000 and W!!

You're unique!

[24601]

10. We are all unique - otherwise why have a forum for sharing views.

All I'm saying is that it is inaccurate to consider it the gang of 5 when it was really the gang of 7. Without the 1st 7-2 vote that Florida (where I live now) had colored outside the Constitution's lines, there never would have been a 2nd vote (the 5-4) whether Florida had time under the safe harbor law to remedy the defect. If the 1st vote was that Florida was following the Constitution, the question of time for a remedy is moot because no remedy would have been required.

And to correct my earlier post record, it wasn't Ginsburg that voted with the majority on the 7-2 vote. The 7 Justices ruling Florida was violating the equal protection clause were Rehnquist, Kennedy, O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas, Breyer and Souter. Only Ginsburg and Stevens dissented on that first question.

The only 5-4 vote was on time for a remedy. On that question Breyer and Souter switched and aligned to dissent along with Ginsburg and Stevens.

The relevant legal analysis is that Breyer, Souter (and to a lesser degree Kennedy) weren't ever tools of the Bush machine. You can say they were in your opinion wrong, but they were hardly in the Bush camp. It's also disingenuous to characterize Bush v. Gore as only the 5-4 vote, just like it wasn't only the preceding 7-2 vote. It needs to be considered with all the pieces in place.

You're also barking up the wrong tree on military ballots. http://www.roa.org/site/PageServer?pagename=law_review_109

[defendandprotect]

11. Sorry -- but you can't blame Ginsburg for putting Bush in WH ... she did not vote with Gang of 5 --

[24601]

13. Re-read the 2nd para of my previous post (#10) where I pointed out

that it wasn't Ginsburg but Breyer, Souter, O'Connor & Kennedy that voted with the reliably conservative Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas. Of the 9 Justices, only Stevens & Ginsburg voted to uphold Florida's recount effort. 7 of the 9 said what Florida was doing violated the Constitution. It's disingenuous to blame any "gang of 5" when the more important and substantively dispositive vote was the first 7-2 determination.

If the 7-2 majority had not first determined Florida was proceeding unconstitutionally, there never would have been a follow-on procedural vote (the 5-4 vote) regarding time allowed for any remedy.

Without a doubt, the 7-2 vote was constitutionally far more significant than the 5-4.

[defendandprotect]

14. Check the 5 vote decision re putting Bush in White House and let me know if you...

see Gingsburg name as one of the five --

If you want to continue going around in circles -- go alone!

[24601]

15. First, are you having a difficult time reading post #10? I'll

quote from it:

"And to correct my earlier post record, it wasn't Ginsburg that voted with the majority on the 7-2 vote. The 7 Justices ruling Florida was violating the equal protection clause were Rehnquist, Kennedy, O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas, Breyer and Souter. Only Ginsburg and Stevens dissented on that first question."

The key words are

- I corrected the justices in the 7-2 vote and said Ginsburg was not in that group - so obsess all you want about her, the three justices joining the reliably conservative were Kennedy, Breyer and Souter. Let me know how that impeachment is coming out for you - but Souter & O'Connor have retired. Are you really up for impeaching Breyer?

- Now, I'll type this slow 'cause your reading comprehension has apparently run into problems and you show a consistent difficulty counting beyond 5. If the majority, by 7-2, had not first voted that Florida was out of constitutional bounds, there never would have been a 5-4 second vote because there would have been nothing to remedy. The key vote that established Florida was wrong was the 7-2 vote. Only Ginsburg & Stevens dissented from that.

- The 5-4 vote was not a fundamental constitutional question but a procedural application of the safe harbor law.

You can blame the 5 justices all you want, but you are in fantasy land because you never get to that point without Souter, Breyer, Kennedy and O'Connor having first joined Rehnquist, Scalia & Thomas on the fundamental Constitutional Equal Protection question.

[Doctor_J]

9. Slappy Thomas lied during his confirmation hearings

so did Alito and Roberts. Perjury would certainly be grounds, I would think

[defendandprotect]

12. Absolutely -- plus Clarence Thomas is a pervert .... and Biden helped cover it up -- !!

[Solly Mack]

5. k/r