Judge Strikes Down Part of Patriot Act 673
Shining Celebi writes "U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero ruled in favor of the ACLU and struck down a portion of the revised USA PATRIOT Act this morning, forcing investigators to go through the courts to obtain approval before ordering ISPs to give up information on customers, instead of just sending them a National Security Letter. In the words of Judge Marrero, this use of National Security Letters 'offends the fundamental constitutional principles of checks and balances and separation of powers.'"
Patriot act ISN'T patriotic. (Score:5, Interesting)
More partisan crap? (Score:4, Interesting)
Courts these days have very little to do with a codified rule of law - look at all of the Supreme Court cases where major changes in national course have been made by a single person voting along party lines.
This ruling is inevitably going to be appealed, since the government has unlimited funds to drag things through court indefinitely (zero accoutability) and will eventually be brought before the USSC where it will probably be ultimately overturned on a 5-4 vote along party lines. Personally, I think that any case that isn't decided by a margin of at least three should never be allowed to be considered as precedent, and that if a judicial panel can't rule by at least a margin of two then the law should be immediately thrown out as being too vague.
Re:Absolutely shameless plug (Score:4, Interesting)
For me, I prefer the Institute for Justice [ij.org], where I donate my money towards real lawyers who get out and trample on the State that tries to trample on us. I'd never give to the ACLU, which has a history of supporting aggressive government growth when it appeals to them, versus the IJ which works against government in ever lawsuit it files or every defendant it defends.
Re:Contribute (Score:5, Interesting)
IMO that's a BIG problem. It means essentially that they can pass any unconstitutional law and SCOTUS will take four years before they'll strike it down as unconstitutional. That IMO is really bad.
One clause at a time, if we have to. (Score:5, Interesting)
Various parts of The Government Intrusion Act have been struck down over the years, right from the time it was first passed. I was hoping they'd let it just go away through its sunset clause, but they rammed a new version through. So now we start the process anew... go after one part at a time. It may take a while, but it will all eventually go away because Congress and the President overstepped their constitutional authority.
Re:More partisan crap? (Score:3, Interesting)
Claiming that it is partisan crap just makes you look like a fool. Anyone who cares about partisanship is a fool.
We're all Americans (of those of us who are) and we need to unite in the common cause of preserving our fair republic.
These people in power now (who claim to be republicans) are actually neo-conservatives. (also known as reaganites).
Their goals are not those of real republicans.
In the words of Ronald Reagan (a real republican who was used as a puppet) "In the present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
This ideology is closer to what we, who think of ourselves as slightly conservative, believe ours to be.
Calling yourself a republican and supporting the party, when so little of it actually shares your ideology, is dangerous and foolhardy.
Neoconservatives have different goals than most Americans. They want a smaller government to have more power and less oversight. They want wealth to flow upward to a few captains of industry. They want to impose social restrictions on Americans. They want to turn their religious beliefs into Law. They want to keep the population scared and obedient. These ideals are not mine. I'm sure they aren't yours. They are very far from classic American ideology. Our current government has the idea that the people need to be controlled. They are leaning so far away from republicanism that they are scared of the people.
"A republic is a form of government maintained by a state or country whose sovereignty is based on consent of the governed and whose governance is based on popular representation. Rule of law is an essential feature of a republic." -- wikipedia
Our current government want to rule without the consent of the people and without full representation. "I'm the decider" -- George W. Bush
The PATRIOT ACT is a way of usurping the consent of the people and the oversight of the other branches of government. It is not necessary.
The reason it is not necessary is because the NSA has been monitoring "signals" communication for over thirty years. They don't miss much.
Re:Should not have been a judge in the first place (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:It's a good start (Score:3, Interesting)
Hell, no (Score:2, Interesting)
For example, a courthouse has a display of 15 of history's preeminant lawgivers. Among them, is Jesus. ACLU is trying to get rid of the Jesus image [christianpost.com]. I can't say I agree with that. Jesus is up there with 15 of history's preeminant lawgivers, IMO. Makes sense. He promoted peace and justice, things you want in a courthouse. Or the ethiopian food fight [dailyprogress.com]. Were it about Republicans, or about the plight of white overage Americans, the ACLU wouldn't care.
Are those 2 (very recent) examples really what you want your tax dollars going towards? I'd classify it as pork. There are so many things that rank higher in the world of 'civil liberties', the ACLU, from what I have seen, nitpicks the little things that really don't matter. If pictures offend you, you have bigger problems.
Re:ahem (Score:3, Interesting)
We in this great country prefer the Court of Public Opinion, because it gives 40 seconds to one side of the story, 10 seconds to the other side to show their not biased, and 10 seconds of the newscasters own disgust or personal opinion. That way, we get the whole court of public opinion case over with in 1 Minute, instead of months of boring details like evidence in Criminal Court!
Re:The Judicial system: Freedom versus Tyranny (Score:3, Interesting)
U.S. code - Title 10, Section 311:
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Re:Educated Public is essential to a Democracy. (Score:2, Interesting)
You get that back. Since you are taxed "zero" for churches, you get back "zero".
What planet do you live on?
Re:Contribute (Score:5, Interesting)
The worst part is that the local DA and the police know it is illegal to do this and do it anyway.
Personally I think we need both the ACLU and the NRA, and as many other groups that want to fight for our civil liberties.
Re:where does medicine come from? (Score:2, Interesting)
(b) How many unsuccessful drugs have BMS have attempted, and how much have they lost persuing them? How many of those drugs were unsuccessful because the FDA didn't approve them, even if there are people for whom using it would be worth the risk? Generally, how much money is spent by pharmaceutical companies on unsuccessful drugs for every successful drug?
(c) How many drugs does this scenario actually relate to? Is this exception or the norm?
I think you have to ask all of those questions before concluding that the government is a useful vehicle for sustainable medicine development.
Re:paranoia will destroy ya (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not 'unpossible', it's in place. Know what a telephone switch is? A computer. Know how easy it is to divert and filter packets going through a computer? Trivial. Know how hard it is to have those packets analysed by the switch, or optionally, another computer the packets are forwarded to? Also trivial. Where it gets human-intensive is the second order analysis, when the computer flags stuff for human eyes to look over. That takes a bit of programming to get right. Now, Fed programmers may not be the brightest of the bright, but there's a lot of them. Given enough time, I have zero doubt they can write filtering programs. And sometimes, they might even get one that works. You're simply not thinking in large enough terms. The Feds have trillions of dollars to play with. Diverting a couple billion to handle the task is no big thing for them.
Again, look at the big picture. Throw enough money at a problem, you'll come up with something.
Re:Absolutely shameless plug (Score:3, Interesting)