NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/09/26/patriot.act/index.html


I guess we'll see how this decision goes on appeal. My prediction:

9th Circuit affirms
Supreme Court dismisses, either or the merits or for lack of standing


Lack of standing would be great, I love it when the court avoids a question, in a sick and twisted kind of way...

Well, I guess some more Reichstags will have to be burnt...

Here is a link to the actual opinion (http://www.ord.uscourts.gov/rulings/04-cv-1427Opinion.pdf)(pdf) for those intrepid souls that wish to read it first hand.

I've only skimmed it so far, but it appears to be great stuff.

I've long been a fan of Gerry Spence, so I was intrigued to see he was lead counsel.

Well, I guess some more Reichstags will have to be burnt...

*Looks around the news*

Nope. The German parliment building is still there.

Here is a link to the actual opinion (http://www.ord.uscourts.gov/rulings/04-cv-1427Opinion.pdf)(pdf) for those intrepid souls that wish to read it first hand.

I've only skimmed it so far, but it appears to be great stuff.

I've long been a fan of Gerry Spence, so I was intrigued to see he was lead counsel.

YOu are right that it is interesting and I thank you for the link.

a sound piece as I read it so far. Will have ot give it more than a cursory glance tomorrow.

I have, on my fridge, a clipout of the article where over 100 communities were levying fines against any public official complying with Patriot Act measures.
Proudly.

Only three words: About fucking time.

What do you call it when a page of the patriot act falls into the fireplace and burns? A good start.

About fucking time! Now if we can just get the whole act repealed and put Cheney and Bush up for war crimes, that would be even better. Wishful thinking but a man can dream......

Named to the bench in 1997 by President Clinton, Aiken is considered one of the more liberal judges on the federal bench in Oregon

When the fuck did upholding the Constitutional standards this nation was founded on and refusing to let them get trampled upon become the responsibility of liberals?!? :confused:

When the fuck did upholding the Constitutional standards this nation was founded on and refusing to let them get trampled upon become the responsibility of liberals?!? :confused:
Since January 20, 2001.

Since January 20, 2001.

I can't think of anything more conservative than safeguarding the Constitution. :p

I can't think of anything more conservative than safeguarding the Constitution. :pWho said the Republicans were conservative... and who said the Democrats were liberal?

They're all pragmatists, who don't give a fuck unless it gets them votes.

When the fuck did upholding the Constitutional standards this nation was founded on and refusing to let them get trampled upon become the responsibility of liberals?!? :confused:

When neo-cons become the opposite norm of the liberals.

Hey... we had something like this in the UK.

My understanding of what happened is that the Judges gave the government an ultimatum to alter the act so that it was constitutional within a certain time limit or the whole act would be declared unconstitutional.

Something to do with the judiciary not having executive powers/line-item-veto powers. Ergo, they can only say something is constitutional or it isn't. They can't say that a certain part is and then remove that part from the act.

Who said the Republicans were conservative... and who said the Democrats were liberal?

They're all pragmatists, who don't give a fuck unless it gets them votes.

Actually, no truer words have ever been spoken on NSG.

The judge in question is clearly a terrorist.




;)

Something to do with the judiciary not having executive powers/line-item-veto powers. Ergo, they can only say something is constitutional or it isn't. They can't say that a certain part is and then remove that part from the act.

Ours can, provided that the unconstitutional provisions can be removed without rendering the whole thing ineffective.

If a part can be removed yet leave a functioning remainder, then that part can be excised as being unconstitutional.

Ours can, provided that the unconstitutional provisions can be removed without rendering the whole thing ineffective.

If a part can be removed yet leave a functioning remainder, then that part can be excised as being unconstitutional.

Thank God. LOL

Thank God. LOL

I'd prefer they excise it messily from the body of US law. If possible, in such a way that no one would use it as a precedent.

I'd prefer they excise it messily from the body of US law. If possible, in such a way that no one would use it as a precedent.

well, this case kinda couldn't. A court can, at least in theory, only deal with those issues in front of it. Through what I read, the case only dealt with those specific provisions of the Act, so that's all that could be ruled upon.

Courts can't throw the baby out with the bathwater, no matter how much we might wish it to or the striking resemblance to Rosemary's baby it may have.

About fucking time! Now if we can just get the whole act repealed

Amen to that!

and put Cheney and Bush up for war crimes,

Hold it, hold it. What war-crimes? Starting a war isn't a war crime. Besides, John Kerry actually killed non-combatants (at least he had the guts to admit it). Don't you think we should "put up" him first?

Who said the Republicans were conservative... and who said the Democrats were liberal?

They're all pragmatists, who don't give a fuck unless it gets them votes.

*applause*

I can't think of anything more conservative than safeguarding the Constitution. :p

How times change. I remember them days.

Who said the Republicans were conservative... and who said the Democrats were liberal?

They're all pragmatists, who don't give a fuck unless it gets them votes.
And monies. Can't forget that.

Who said the Republicans were conservative... and who said the Democrats were liberal?

They're all pragmatists, who don't give a fuck unless it gets them votes.

That is a big ten-four, buddy. Best response of this thread.

If the patriot act is not appealed by the time I graduate, man, I will consider leaving the country.

Amen to that!



Hold it, hold it. What war-crimes? Starting a war isn't a war crime. Besides, John Kerry actually killed non-combatants (at least he had the guts to admit it). Don't you think we should "put up" him first?
This is news to me. I don't suppose you'd be willing to provide a source for it, would you?

This is news to me. I don't suppose you'd be willing to provide a source for it, would you?

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061603.shtml

In the distance, an elderly man was tending his water buffalo -- and serving as human cover for a dozen Viet Cong manning a machine-gun nest.

"Open fire; let's take 'em," Kerry ordered, according to his second-in-command, James Wasser of Illinois. Wasser blasted away with his M-60, hitting the old man, who slumped into the water, presumably dead. With a clear path to the enemy, the fusillade from Kerry's Navy boat, backed by a pair of other small vessels, silenced the machine-gun nest.

His words. (I mean Wasser's)

*jumps up,cheers,cartwheels,hoorays,backflips,cartwheels to Whitehouse double middle finger up and down pumps to bush,forms "gun" shape with middle fingers and thumbs goes backwards and fowards flippin' of Bush,moon's Cheyne and backflips home*

I have, on my fridge, a clipout of the article where over 100 communities were levying fines against any public official complying with Patriot Act measures.
Proudly.

I want a copy of that list.Where'd you find it?

Ours can, provided that the unconstitutional provisions can be removed without rendering the whole thing ineffective.

If a part can be removed yet leave a functioning remainder, then that part can be excised as being unconstitutional.

So what are the odds this gets upheld on appeal?

Edit: Because to be honest, THAT'S when I'll break out the champaigne.

So what are the odds this gets upheld on appeal?

well, it's going to appeal...to the 9th circuit court of appeals.

That crazy wacky liberal as all fuck 9th circuit court of appeals.

SCOTUS may be another matter, but even that's hard to say. ginsburg stevens sutor and breyer will most likely stand with the 9th circuit. Scalia Alitto and Thomas are too busy sucking on the administration's collective cock to overturn it, which leaves Roberts and Kennedy.

And the thing about roberts and kennedy is that while they may be fairly conservative, they are strict constitutionalists for the most part, and are not typically going to buy into Bush's unitary executive bullshit. I think they can at least be counted on to uphold the constitution when it's obvious it's being breeched, unlike thomas scalia and alitto.

Good.

This forum requires that you wait 30 seconds between posts. Please try again in 1 seconds.

Scalia Alitto and Thomas are too busy sucking on the administration's collective cock to overturn it, which leaves Roberts and Kennedy.

Not so sure about Scalia. Even though he's avid pro-life, pro-religion and pro-death penalty, he often sides with criminal defendants when it comes to 4th Amendment issues.

And the thing about roberts and kennedy is that while they may be fairly conservative, they are strict constitutionalists for the most part...Wait. Kennedy actually has a legal philosophy?

News to me. While he's not the most objectionable of the lot, when it comes to legal theory he doesn't even bother to do us the courtesy of making it up as he goes along (Scalia); he just avoids it altogether.

Wait. Kennedy actually has a legal philosophy?


Occassionally. When he remembers who and where he is.

Hold it, hold it. What war-crimes? Starting a war isn't a war crime. Besides, John Kerry actually killed non-combatants (at least he had the guts to admit it). Don't you think we should "put up" him first?
Considering the 'old man' in the story was actively protecting the VietCong, one could easily argue he wasn't a non-combatant - thus meaning Kerry didn't commit a war crime.

Hey... we had something like this in the UK.

My understanding of what happened is that the Judges gave the government an ultimatum to alter the act so that it was constitutional within a certain time limit or the whole act would be declared unconstitutional.

Something to do with the judiciary not having executive powers/line-item-veto powers. Ergo, they can only say something is constitutional or it isn't. They can't say that a certain part is and then remove that part from the act.

We well Canuks follow the British system pretty closely in terms of Constitutional questions, and there are a number of remedies a court can use when a piece of legislation, or a part of it is found to be unconstitutional. What you've described is a striking down and temporarily suspending a declaration of invalidity. They will give the Legislature enough time to fix it, or a certain amount of time passes and it is struck down. But I am fairly certain your courts still have the ability to severe a certain clause from a piece of Legislation if found to be unconstitutional, Parliamentary supremacy be damned. If they decided that severing a clause or two or many alone would not save the Legislation, then that is the preferred method, rather than striking down an entire Act. Frankly...if the courts in Britain can strike down, they can severe.

That's pretty interesting...

We well Canuks follow the British system pretty closely in terms of Constitutional questions, and there are a number of remedies a court can use when a piece of legislation, or a part of it is found to be unconstitutional. What you've described is a striking down and temporarily suspending a declaration of invalidity. They will give the Legislature enough time to fix it, or a certain amount of time passes and it is struck down. But I am fairly certain your courts still have the ability to severe a certain clause from a piece of Legislation if found to be unconstitutional, Parliamentary supremacy be damned. If they decided that severing a clause or two or many alone would not save the Legislation, then that is the preferred method, rather than striking down an entire Act. Frankly...if the courts in Britain can strike down, they can severe.That sounds reasonable. And looking back on the wiki you seem to be right. It seems only Part IV of the law was under question. And what was great was the Commons had to listen to the Lords demands as there couldn't wait around and just use the Parliament Act to bypass the Lords as the law was set to expire in 3 months.

I like it when the Judiciary screw with the government's plans like this guy. I especially like judge Jeremy Sullivan. He ruled against the government a fair few times. :)

I like it when the Judiciary screw with the government's plans like this guy. I especially like judge Jeremy Sullivan. He ruled against the government a fair few times. :)

The courts like to think of it as ruling in favour of the Constitution. Sometimes it's an important distinction.

This is news to me. I don't suppose you'd be willing to provide a source for it, would you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0SxHvU5NhE