Richard Nixon was removed from the U.S. presidential office for authorizing a few clowns to break into an office and yet the NSA rapes your privacy on a daily basis:
Richard Nixon is rolling over in his grave and wants a do-over.
Update 12/19/13 8:28 a.m.: Excellent analysis of U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon's decision by Fox TeeVee Judge Andrew P. Napolitano:
"Even though [author of our Constitution, James] Madison would be aghast, surely the Obama administration will appeal this, and just as surely, appellate judges or Supreme Court justices will have the final say. But for now, we have the great satisfaction of knowing that an independent judiciary has saved our liberties from the tyranny of the majority. And this is a cause for great joy," Napolitano says, breathing an almost audible sigh of relief.
6 comments:
This ruling is great news - and it's about time.
The NSA is a terrorist group - a far greater threat to all of us than some hard luck case squatting in a cave somewhere.
Legal scholar Orin Kerr over on The Volokh Conspiracy blog (libertarian) disagrees and thinks the judge's decision is, constitutionally speaking, extremely weak. ( Will post link when I get to desktop.)
Is funny tho to see Fox News analysts suddenly praising an independent judiciary, which they normally attack as downright unAmerican and not what the founders intended.
Ahem, Bob!
In the interim since this last post, Bob, I've pored over all of "legal scholar" Orin Kerr's fistfull of VC posts on this topic, and with respect to all of them, I'll just adopt Mr. Kerr's own terminology, i.e,' I don't find any of the Mr. Kerr's opinions "Persuasive.
I'll be standing by with abated breath however, for your link to any Orin Kerr Volokh Conspiracy writeup which might arguably "trump" FOX News Judge Napolitano's analytical masterpiece.
Link to Napolitano comment not working, so I can't speak to the merits of his argument. But I suspect from the part you cite that his analysis may (I said may) be driven by his support for the policy end (reining in NSA), which I share, rather than for the constitutional argument the judge offered on air. That and I'm usually leery about people who announce with absolute certainty that this or that founder would absolutely and without question have agreed with them about a modern policy issue they could not possibly have imagined.
As for Kerr's analysis, merely wanted to note on WCF that Kerr (a libertarian legal scholar of some repute) disagrees with Napolitano's take on the matter, that's all. There seem to be differing views on the question, and not from wingnut extremists. The part of Kerr's analysis that interested me most was the section questioning the judges cost/benefit analysis of the NSA data mining (e.g. does the benefit to the republic in terms of protection from attack outweigh whatever encoachment on a protected liberty might result from it?). That is certainly a, and possibly the, key question the courts have to address in deciding the constituional question re: the data-mining. As has been said often in another context, the Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.
That said, I have over time not been particularly impressed with Judge Waddoups' tenure on the federal bench. Doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong in this instance. We shall have to see how it plays out.
Regardless of what the judge ruled the powers that be have already stated they will not be encumbered by the rule of law. They did this when the first shovel of dirt was moved to build the Data Center. Anyone that believes this facility will be moth balled based on any judicial decision or that the quasi-legal (at best) data gathering which takes place there will be significantly curtailed is deluding themselves.
Should have read " quasi-legal (at best) data gathering which will take place there ONCE UP AND RUNNING will be.....
Post a Comment