EPIC will file an emergency petition with the Supreme Court on Monday

[kentuck]

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/privacy-group-will-ask-supreme-court-to-take

A privacy rights group will file an emergency petition with the Supreme Court on Monday in an effort to halt the National Security Agency's sweeping collection of millions of telephone records, the New York Times reported.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center — a Washington- based nonprofit founded in 1994 that seeks to shed light on civil liberties and First Amendment issues — said it is taking it case directly to the Supreme Court due to the "exceptional circumstances" of the issue and because it could not challenge the program with the secret court that approved the surveillance.

Moreover, the group told the Times that lower courts do not have the authority to hear review an order handed down by the secret court — the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, better-known as the "FISA court."

On edit: Full story at this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/08/us/privacy-group-to-ask-supreme-court-to-stop-nsas-phone-spying-program.html?hp&_r=2&

[WovenGems]

1. Won't work

Roberts is on the FISA court so this ain't got a snowballs chance in hell.

[Ms. Toad]

21. Actually, he's not.

He appoints judges to the court - he doesn't sit on the court.

I can't easily find the details, but an emergency application would normally go to a single justice for review, part of whose job is to decide if it is likely that 4 justices would agree to grant certiorari. The circuits are assigned to a particular justice (but part of what I'm not sure of is which justice receives the petition in a case like this which did not come up through the circuits).

[graham4anything]

2. So do you think Alito and Scalia and Thomas and Roberts will overturn this? besides,

the court Is adjuoured til September.

Only by voting only for democratic candidates will SCOTUS change, and that won't be before 2018.

in fact, any lawsuits now will in ironic (or possibly that is the goal, who knows), will make this last forever.

It makes no sense.

Of course, it will show that who picks SCOTUS is what separates democratic candidates from republican ones.

[kentuck]

3. The question is:

Will they even hear it? No one at the moment expects them to overturn anything.

[Recursion]

9. And would overturning the law be better or worse?

If FISA as a whole is overturned, that returns us to the pre-1978 world where the President's powers of surveillance are largely unchecked.

[kentuck]

10. Do the President's powers have to be "largely unchecked"..?

..if there is no secret FISA court? And isn't a secret court the same as "largely unchecked"?

[Recursion]

11. No, before FISA the President could legally simply surveil anyone he wished to at any time

under the rubric of "national security".

He would have trouble introducing that in a prosecution, but that's also true right now.

[kentuck]

14. But isn't a secret court...

that more or less rubberstamps every request, just a rubric of "legality"?

[Recursion]

15. Well, AFAIK nobody has ever had NSA data used against them in a criminal trial

And my non-lawyer's guess would be that if an individual could show injury like that, the court in question would take a dim view of the surveillance. But we'll have to see (and, hopefully, we never will).

[greiner3]

18. "Well, AFAIK nobody has ever had NSA data used against them in a criminal trial"

'Nobody' is an absolute.

How can you say that information gathered from info collected by the NSA data could not lead to an investigation that then goes on to prosecution of a different crime?

[Recursion]

19. Illegaly-obtained information is always able to "lead to an investigation"

But the actual presented evidence still has to pass voir dire.

[Ms. Toad]

24. So all that stuff Bush was doing was legal.

That sure isn't consistent with the meme that it was illegal under Bush, but just hunky dory now because President Obama is just doing what the law requires.

[Recursion]

25. It went against FISA

FISA limited the President's domestic surveillance powers, though as far as I can tell Presidents just kind of ignored the law, and it was never challenged in the courts -- it's an open question what a ruling would have been, since it's a legislative limit on what had previously been considered an inherent Executive power, and that's generally a no-no.

[Ms. Toad]

26. The inherent Executive power

does not (and cannot) permit the executive branch to act in unconstitutional ways, as the FBI was doing prior to 1978.

[Veilex]

30. "Only by voting only for democratic candidates will SCOTUS change"

I respectfully disagree... substitute "progressive" or "liberal" for "democratic" and I'll agree 100%
Its a quibble point I know... but theres enough so-called-democrats that the distinction really must be made at this point.

[graham4anything]

31. If Ralph Nader ran as a democratic candidate for Senate, I would vote for him.

I would never vote for a libertarian like Ron or Rand Paul, as they are 100% against anything I am for and they
are
100% bonafide republicans and Rand is on the side of Jeb Bush.
If you say huh? I say he would take the VP in a NYC minute if Jeb asked.

[Veilex]

33. I've never been a hard-line Democrat myself... in large part because of the Corprocrats who pretend

to wear the "D". Also, if there was a so-called Libertarian or republican who was, through actions, a progressive or liberal, I'd certainly vote for them (assuming there was not a better candidate), but in today's day and age, that just isn't gonna happen. Truth is, some big "D" Dems are more Republican than the Republicans... we need to bring the system back to a true center-left as opposed to the right-far right we're sitting at as a political body.

[dipsydoodle]

4. And in the Uk - NSA and GCHQ spy programmes face legal challenge.

The British and US spy programmes that allow intelligence agencies to gather, store and share data on millions of people have been challenged in a legal claim brought by privacy campaigners.

Papers filed on Monday call for an immediate suspension of Britain's use of material from the Prism programme, which is run by America's National Security Agency.

They also demand a temporary injunction to the Tempora programme, which allows Britain's spy centre GCHQ to harvest millions of emails, phone calls and Skype conversations from the undersea cables that carry internet traffic in and out of the country.

Lawyers acting for the UK charity Privacy International say the programme is not necessary or proportionate. They say the laws being used to justify mass data trawling are being abused by intelligence officials and ministers, and need to be urgently reviewed.

Privacy International has submitted a claim to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), which is supposed to review all complaints about the conduct of Britain's spy agencies. The organisation hopes for a public hearing and early rulings because of the seriousness of the situation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk-news/2013/jul/08/nsa-gchq-spy-programmes-legal-challenge

[Triana]

5. Scalia will thumb his nose. Roberts will essentially circular-file this.

NOTHING that substantially protects or benefits 'we the people' will be passed by this court. If it doesn't benefit corprats or ALEC or the wealthiest and most powerful white men in the nation, the court will wipe their ass on it and go home. It's their M.O. Reference most recently, Citizens United and the VRA - both rulings that have damaged this country more than the goddamned terrorists ever could.

[Recursion]

12. Standing may be difficult to assert

Nobody can show an injury from the surveillance (it's not being used as criminal evidence), so my guess is the court will punt.

[Ms. Toad]

27. That would be part of the decision on the merits,

not a question of standing. Standing arises from the Verizon order, which establishes that records about the plaintiff's telephone conversations were part of the court order (rather than merely speculative - the basis for dismissing the earlier ACLU case).

[Mosaic]

6. I salute them for trying whether it works or not

If they fail, then someone else must take their lead.

[kentuck]

7. I agree.

Just because someone has the technology to invade our privacy or to steal our information does not make it right and does not mean we should surrender our rights. In effect, they are breaking the law by stealing information that does not belong to them. Private information is really no different than private property.

[Recursion]

13. OTOH, somebody has to show a specific injury to get their case heard

Is there someone who has specifically had their interests harmed by this? We'll need that person as a plaintiff.

[Ms. Toad]

29. All you need is someone whose records were included in an order from the court.

Whether there was injury is part of the decision on the merit.

[randome]

16. Who is stealing information?

Are you talking again about the metadata? Or something you heard Snowden say?

You know where the metadata argument leads.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[kentuck]

17. If you do not have the right to another's private information...

then neither should the government. If they get that information and store it for future use, it is stealing. It does not belong to them. Just because they have the technology to do it does not make it right or legal (Fourth Amendment). It is part of your "effects" in the 4th Amendment. Just as the British would come into your home and take the pretty vase you had on your table...

[randome]

22. Again, what are you talking about?

I agree they should not be hoovering up Internet data for citizens. Are they?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Recursion]

8. Actually Scalia may well be on our side on this; he doesn't like a strong judiciary

and the FISA set-up gives unchecked power to the judiciary.

That said, the law that this is based on replaced a situation where the President had unchecked inherent powers to wiretap "for national security purposes", so it's not clear that overturning the current law will make things better.

[geek tragedy]

20. Good move, even though it will not work nt

[DissidentVoice]

23. Not with this SCOTUS...

It's dominated by Reagan/Bush I/Bush II appointees who are, to put it mildly, authoritarian where the rights of the individual are concerned.

I remember back when Clarence Thomas was being appointed he said half-jokingly that his role model was Darth Vader.

Inaccurate. Lord Vader repented of his evil ways.

[Harmony Blue]

28. Of course but it is done more so

to bring public attention and pressure.

[Pholus]

32. Forgot these guys. Time to donate! nt

[PoliticAverse]

34. Clapper v. Amnesty International USA

From Feb 2013...

The 5-4 conservative majority concluded the plaintiffs -- which included attorneys and journalists -- lacked "standing" or jurisdiction to proceed, without proof that suspects have been eavesdropped upon. The super secret National Security Agency has in turn refused to disclose specifics, which detractors call "Catch-22" logic.

Justice Samuel Alito said plaintiffs "cannot demonstrate that the future injury they purportedly fear is certainly impending."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/26/politics/supreme-court-fisa

More info:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/clapper-v-amnesty-international-usa/