Why did the US "Supreme" Court refuse to hear Sibel Edmonds

[texpatriot2004]

case this week? Does anyone know on what grounds, what was the reason these yahoos gave? Did the US "Supreme" Court even bother to give a reason? Why did they refuse to hear her case?

[MrMonk]

1. They don't have to give a reason

and they almost never do.

Where did the case originate, and who is that Justice who covers that Circuit? That might be part of the reason that the appeal wasn't certified.

[donheld]

2. The supremes didn't tell me

:shrug:

[kansasblue]

3. If I remember right is was 'reject with out comment'

[PhilipShore]

4. My own opinion

My own opinion is--please keep in mind that I am not a LAWYER—is that the ACLU has changed from the days when Clarence Darrow was on the ACLU staff. The ACLU back then won some 80% or more of the cases they took on with Darrow.

I doubt very much the ACLU wins 80% of the cases it takes to court, in 2005, that is my personal reason why, she lost.

The Scopes “monkey trial”—80 years later


Clarence Darrow was an immensely successful criminal lawyer who specialized in defending unpopular people and radical causes, often winning seemingly impossible cases.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0711scopes.asp

[youngblue]

5. All nine meet and vote on whether to take any case

It takes 4 votes for the Court to take the case. Since there weren't 4 votes, they didn't take it.

They almost never issue anything that says why they didn't take it.

[0007]

6. Hope this helps - But ya do know that, no reason has to be given.

WASHINGTON - A former FBI translator failed Monday to persuade the Supreme Court to revive her lawsuit alleging she was fired for reporting possible wrongdoing by other linguists involved in counterterrorism investigations.

The high court also rebuffed a request by Sibel Edmonds and media groups to rule on whether an appellate court improperly held arguments in the case in secret without being asked to do so by either side.

"When courts are sealed, the public may suspect the worst and lose faith in their government simply because they are prohibited access," wrote lawyers for media groups, including The Associated Press.

Edmonds, 32, who was hired after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and fired in March 2002, argued that a trial court judge was wrong to accept the Justice Department's claim that allowing her lawsuit to go forward would threaten "state secrets," or national security.

The former translator claimed the FBI terminated her contract after she complained about the quality of translations of terrorism-related wiretaps and had reported that another translator was leaking information to targets of investigations.

At the time, the FBI said it fired Edmonds because she had committed security violations and had disrupted the translation unit at the bureau's Washington field office where she worked.

Edmonds' firing was controversial among some lawmakers in Congress, especially after the Justice Department's inspector general found that the FBI had not taken her complaints seriously enough and had fired her for lodging complaints about the translation unit.

Her lawyers argued the government should not be allowed to use the "state secrets privilege" to silence whistleblowers, such as Edmonds, who reveal "national security blunders."

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton dismissed Edmonds' lawsuit in 2004 after then-Attorney General John Ashcroft invoked the "state secrets privilege" before Justice Department lawyers had responded to any of the case's allegations.

News organizations wanted the court to clarify when and how appellate arguments over civil lawsuits can be closed to the public.

"Closing cases that involve allegations of government wrongdoing ... fosters public doubts about the private justice that certain people and entities get in the public courts, harms public debate about the issues involved ... and perhaps most devastatingly, fosters an appearance of unfairness that the government can close off access to the public courts when it is under fire," the media lawyers said in a friend-of-the-court filing.