![]() ![]() |
![]() |
| |
|
Top Court Sets Back the Foes of Bush’s WiretapsPosted on Feb 19, 2008
The Supreme Court rejected an appeal related to the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretap program on Tuesday, offering no explanation. The American Civil Liberties Union and others have had a hard time proving the plaintiffs were spied on because the evidence they need is considered a government secret.
Previous item: White House Resists Change in Cuba Policy Next item: Obama Wins Again Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
By Conservative Yankee, February 21 at 7:06 am # There is PLENTY of garbage to dig up on GWB, but we don’t help the record by mis-stating facts. Starting at the end, No person on the Supreme Court fought harder for the descenting position on the Florida vote case than did David Souter. After the Vote went against him he claimed “If I had had just another hour, I could have turned Anthony Kennedy.” David Souter was appointed by George H.W. Bush and is the most liberal member of the court.
By Conservative Yankee, February 20 at 2:28 pm # Velcome to Fascist AMERIKA!Where were you living previously?
By don knutsen, February 20 at 8:25 am # A partisan Supreme Court that put this administration in charge in the first place by stopping the recount in Florida, with Cheney’s hunting partner Scalia, his dutiful co-idealog Thomas and with Roberts and Alito added to the mix together with an attorney General who refuses to do his job and we have little chance that the Cheney/Bush enterprise will ever be held to account. Suppose that was always the plan? They didn’t care enough to plan for the inevitable chaos following their shock & awe invasion of Iraq, but they’ve sure covered their own asses over their own illegal actions quite successfully. Ofcourse , if we had the luxury of a congress that still believed in their obligation to rein in at out-of-control executive branch things might be different. But that would take some political courage to do whats right...something in very short supply in Washington D.C.
By Conservative Yankee, February 20 at 7:48 am # ...and a Democrat will insure....What?Obviously posted by a person too young to remember Byron (Whizzer) White, the only justice appointed by the ever-so-liberal JFK. Scroogle him
By Chris, February 20 at 7:45 am # If information pursuant to the most basic Bill of Rights Constitutional challenges is ‘classified’ so that even a Federal Appeals Court is powerless to review it, then the Bill of Rights is functionally no more than a ‘bill of goods’. It is not simply the justices’ political debts which prevent review; the 9th Circuit is widely regarded as one of the most liberal Federal benches currently in (hamstrung) operation and they came up with the same finding: the criminals’ ‘right’ to withold the evidence of widespread, likely universal, civil rights violations trumps everyone’s right to be left alone, to have protection from ‘unwarranted search & seizure’ as (formerly) provided by the 4th Amendment. Absolute power corrupts, and absolute power in the name of ‘security’ corrupts as surely as absolute power grabbed for other stated reasons. Someone please remind me: what exactly is it we are ‘securing,’ again?
By Conservative Yankee, February 20 at 6:29 am # The case was weak, BUT even had there been someone with “standing” and “evidence” the court seems to be heading toward a “if the government, particurly the executive branch, says something, it becomes law...” setting a precedent for delution of “rights”. A cynical person might wonder if this case was meant to do and go exactly as it did? Add Your Comment |
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article