scotus heard what you did in there

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Sydde, Feb 26, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #1
    Warrantless wiretapping not to be addressed.

    The Supremes voted 5-4 to not take up this case. There is little to no doubt that government intel and law enforcement agencies have warrantless wiretaps in place. However where, what, when, on whom is classified information, so if you are being watched, you will not be able to provide evidence of it. Hence, there is no substantive case you can go forward with, you "lack standing". And you cannot speak to a concern that you will be tapped, because that cannot "establish standing". The government, effectively can do what it wants.

    This probably means that no provision of the USA PATRIOT act will ever be visited by the courts. All the government has to do is stamp Classified and we are SOL. Can anyone see any possible recourse here?
     
  2. iMikeT macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #2
    Recourse? How about taking out those torches and pitchforks and marching down to Washington and demanding change?

    Besides, what makes these 5 hard-right robe-wearing judges think they're kings and can dictate what is and isn't law in our constitutionally-limited representative government, especially when they are in the weakest branch of government?
     
  3. Sydde thread starter macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #3
    Weakest? Miranda? Roe? Citizens United? I think you underestimate the power of the bench.
     
  4. iMikeT macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #4


    Yes, the weakest. The Constitution states the Supreme Court to only have "appellate jurisdiction" and to act "under such regulations as the Congress shall make" (US Constitution, Article 3, Sec. 2.2). In essence, their only job is the be the court of last resort when settling cases, cases which may set precedence in future similar cases. They are also to act under the provisions set by Congress and not make laws out of whole cloth. Lawmaking is Congress's job.

    Unfortunately, these bozos act like kings and dictate what is and isn't law in our country. Look at "Citizens United". Thanks to these "wise men", people think corporations are people and money is speech. And it was these guys who said it while our legislators, both Democrats and Republicans, don't see it that way. But of course, they're only saying that on the surface while they pocket money from their corporate donors.

    Regardless, there is no checks and balances when it comes to our branches of government any more. The legislature is always at odds with the executive while the judiciary acts like a king to both of them. So who's supposed to check and balance the judiciary when they go awry like they have been for the past decade?
     
  5. anonymouslurker macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 16, 2012
    #5
    You do understand that that is their job, correct?
     
  6. iMikeT macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #6


    It's their job to act like kings and disregard the laws made by our representative legislature and executed by the executive branch? On top of that, it's their job to make laws out of whole cloth like an edict from the mountain top? It's their job to be dictators? What happened to being accountable to the people they're supposed to serve?
     
  7. CalWizrd Suspended

    CalWizrd

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Location:
    NYC/Raleigh, NC
    #7
    In spite of the fact that I am totally in favor of a woman's right to choose abortion...

    I'd be curious to know if you also think that the Roe v Wade decision was a totally manufactured, pulled from thin air, legislating from the bench decision?
     
  8. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #8
    Agreed. Brown overturned Plessy, which allowed my mother to go to an integrated school for the first time in her life, and graduate top of her class.

    Loving allowed me to marry and start a family with my SO, who is not of my racial background. It also allows my children to not be persecuted because of such a relationship.

    You may think that it is the weakest branch, but for this part-Black guy their last 60 years shaped my life for years to come.

    BL.
     
  9. anonymouslurker macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 16, 2012
    #9
    Source, please.

    For any of it.

    You seem to have a habit of trying to pass things off as fact, and then are proven wrong when sources are provided.

    Maybe you should try to keep your disdain for whatever it is you don't like, from tainting your outlook on things, and try to take a look at everything objectively. You seem very angry that the world does not reflect your socialist utopia. Maybe if you'd look around and realize the reality of things, (like numerous claims of yours which have been proven false), you might change your outlook.
     
  10. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #10
    SCOTUS' job is mainly to see cases, laws, and determine how they apply to the constitution. They're not kings shouting from on high. They make no new laws themselves. Rather, they judge laws that are already in place, and set precedence.

    In this situation, warrantless wiretapping as per certain cases exists in a hazy grey area. Everyone does it because there has been no precedence set to determine it's legality. If SCOTUS finds it violates the 4th amendment, then no law enforcement entity would legally be allowed to do it from that point on.

    So what you should be mad at here isn't them disregarding the law. They're not doing anything of the sort. Rather you should be pissed off they're not doing their job. They're basically saying "You know...this is gonna end up being an absolute teetotally huge ****storm, so...uh...we're gonna pass on it and...uh...do something else".
     
  11. iMikeT macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #11

    Roe v Wade was about privacy rights which falls under the 4th amendment. The court was not overreaching when it upheld that women have every right to make a private choice when it comes to their reproductive rights.



    And as an ethnic minority myself, I am also affected by the decisions made by such people who hold such office.

    And as I said in an earlier post, the Supreme Court should only act as the court of last resort as stated in the US Constitution and under the regulations set forth by the representatives we elect.

    And when it comes to deciding cases, look what's going on today with the court hearing arguments for the Voting Rights Act. These kings can easily do away with provisions of it and open the floodgates to allow states like Alabama to reverse the last 60 years when it comes to voting equality.



    No answers to the questions I asked so I see where this is going.
     
  12. CalWizrd Suspended

    CalWizrd

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Location:
    NYC/Raleigh, NC
    #12
    Yeah, just like I thought you'd respond. You are extremely objective in your views and opinions. :confused:
     
  13. iMikeT macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #13


    And that's exactly what it should be limited to, nothing more, nothing less. However, it doesn't mirror reality. The Supreme Court has been overreaching in the last decade with the decisions they've made for the last decade.
     
  14. anonymouslurker, Feb 27, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2013

    anonymouslurker macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 16, 2012
    #14
    No answers to things you just made up in your head?

    Burden is on you, my friend...

    You made up some silly questions.

    I asked for sources that any of them actually exist.

    Your turn, thanks :)

    Edit: I'll even help spell it out for you...

    Did they do that, when it wasn't unconstitutional? Source, please?

    They've created laws on the books that were not the result of a ruling? Source, please?

    Wow... nothing to say, other than source, please?
     
  15. iMikeT macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #15

    Now I'm confused.
     
  16. CalWizrd Suspended

    CalWizrd

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Location:
    NYC/Raleigh, NC
    #16
    No surprise there.
     
  17. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #17
    How so? I've yet to hear about them overstepping their boundaries. They see cases as they come to them. Most they can do is turn down a hearing, as they're doing here.

    It seems your biggest fear is that one government entity exists as the final say in the legality of something. Why? If SCOTUS didn't exist, you'd have all the circuit courts setting their own precedence in whatever district they're in. What would be legal in one area, would be illegal just a few miles down the road. SCOTUS' job is to say "Yes. We find this verdict stated by the 5th circuit to be legal and constitutional". or "No. We find this to be illegal and unconstitutional". They are where the buck stops. Without them, we'd have all kinds of various interpretations of the law. Each state would be like a different denomination of a church, where their laws change depending on how they choose to define the wording of the constitution. It'd be complete and total chaos. Pursuing criminal actions across state lines would be nigh impossible.

    Like right now California has laws against warrantless wiretaps. Other states? Not so much. So who's right and who's wrong here? Who's there to have the final say on it's constitutional validity?

    That's SCOTUS' job. Or...well...it usually is.
     
  18. iMikeT macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #18


    Sources

    This guy

    This guy again

    ----------


    Elaborate.
     
  19. CalWizrd Suspended

    CalWizrd

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Location:
    NYC/Raleigh, NC
    #19
    It would be a waste of my time, and yours.
     
  20. anonymouslurker macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 16, 2012
    #20
    Oh, boy, that is funny!!

    Sorry to tell you, but a random youtube video of a progressive radio host isn't really all that up to snuff as a valid source ;)

    Please try again, thanks.

    Again, just because we close our eyes really hard, and wish really hard, for something to be true, even if other people wish the same thing, doesn't make it true.
     
  21. iMikeT macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #21

    Here's the crux of the matter. We're supposed to have a government which has three branches correct? There's supposed to be a checks and balances between the three. What's going on is the judiciary is not being checked and balanced by the other two. The unbalance is giving too much power to one branch and that branch is answering to no one at the moment.

    ----------



    And I suppose if someone posted some CONservative talking head like those on Faux Noise and Limpballs as a source that it would make the con's con more valid right? Fair and balanced. :rolleyes:

    Besides, what's wrong with progressivism?
     
  22. anonymouslurker macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 16, 2012
    #22
    Nope, your snide digging aside, those would not be valid sources either. And you know for a fact that they would be torn apart as such, on this forum.

    Still waiting, by the way. Again, please provide sources to your claims where I've asked, as per forum rules.
     
  23. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #23
    What have they done recently that could be considered an abuse of their position? They've been responsible for a few controversial decisions, sure. But most of it's only controversial depending on which side of the issue you stand. They haven't done anything that's required the other two branches to step in and take control. Haven't done anything that requires a check to balance them out.

    When you say stuff like this...

    ...it makes me think you're not arguing against SCOTUS exactly, rather a potential flaw in the system.
     
  24. iMikeT macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #24


    Which is why I always say, let's fix the system.
     
  25. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #25
    That's something not easily fixed, since it's dependent upon human nature, and the disposition of those residing on the bench at the time. It's a flaw of the legal system in general.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page