Various U.S. Supreme Court Rulings [Cur. Same Sex Marriage]

[AndyDufresne]

Crispy, you and your logic have no place here. Begone! Begone with you, demon child! Hie to your horse at once!


--Andy

[Woodruff]

I'm pretty sure all of us here are aware of this. The Electronic Freedom Foundation has been fighting this battle since well before the FISA amendments of 2008 were instituted (they started in 2005, I believe). Just because there is a law on the books doesn't make it reasonable or Constitutional. As well, what motivation does Congress have for rolling it back? None, as far as as I can tell.

There's a lot of people in this forum feigning shock and horror at the administration, given that "all of us" are aware of this.

I don't think it's "shock and horror", I think it's "let's talk about this thing that's now being discussed nationwide".

If you're the administration, it's just irresponsible to not use the tools available to you to protect the citizenry.

You think it's "responsible" to violate the law of the land?

This is why we have a legislative branch: to set the bounds for what those tools are (in addition to what is enumerated in the Constitution). If they set bounds that overreach the Constitution, we bring it to court and we fix it. This is how the process is supposed to work, and it's why we have a judicial system.

The problem is that this doesn't work with SECRET PROGRAMS. If we don't know about it, how can we take it to court? And when we take it to court, they get it dismissed due to national security concerns. It's not possible to do what you're saying, and that is precisely the problem that the EFF has been having in trying to fight it all of these years.

It seems reasonable to me that gathering all communication information on every citizen without a warrant or just cause should be considered unreasonable.

So the Fourth Amendment litmus test is: does Woodruff think this method is reasonable?

If I'm going to be discussing the issue, then it makes sense that I would do so from my perspective, doesn't it? I mean...do you want me to try to discuss it from AOG's perspective?

i don't think so. they are still monitoring what we do. they are just going to wait until this all blows over and people forget about it and carry on as usual.

So all you folks are doing in these threads is paying lip service to the idea that the government should preserve liberty more? Great success.

I'm not sure where you got that idea from what he said...

[Metsfanmax]

I'm pretty sure all of us here are aware of this. The Electronic Freedom Foundation has been fighting this battle since well before the FISA amendments of 2008 were instituted (they started in 2005, I believe). Just because there is a law on the books doesn't make it reasonable or Constitutional. As well, what motivation does Congress have for rolling it back? None, as far as as I can tell.

There's a lot of people in this forum feigning shock and horror at the administration, given that "all of us" are aware of this.

I don't think it's "shock and horror", I think it's "let's talk about this thing that's now being discussed nationwide".

Well, I hate to use Night Strike, patches and Dukasaur as an example, but...

If you're the administration, it's just irresponsible to not use the tools available to you to protect the citizenry.

You think it's "responsible" to violate the law of the land?

I think that if it were obvious that this policy "violates the law of the land," then Congress would not have been able to get it through easily, and it wouldn't have survived five years. This is an issue that needs to be settled by SCOTUS, and until such time as it is demonstrated that things like PRISM are in violation of some part of the Constitution, it most definitely is irresponsible.

I wouldn't be saying the same thing if Congress somehow managed to pass a law that were obviously unconstitutional from the getgo. But if PRISM is unconstitutional, it's for an incidental reason, as the fourth amendment doesn't protect foreigners against being searched in this way. The issue with PRISM is that some American citizens are being caught in the sweeps as unintentional targets in their conversations with others. If this law just magically appeared on the books yesterday without any history of government doing digital surveillance, I'd be more sympathetic to this view. But there's a long and complicated legal road that got us here, and it's not at all clear where it's going to end.

This is why we have a legislative branch: to set the bounds for what those tools are (in addition to what is enumerated in the Constitution). If they set bounds that overreach the Constitution, we bring it to court and we fix it. This is how the process is supposed to work, and it's why we have a judicial system.

The problem is that this doesn't work with SECRET PROGRAMS. If we don't know about it, how can we take it to court? And when we take it to court, they get it dismissed due to national security concerns. It's not possible to do what you're saying, and that is precisely the problem that the EFF has been having in trying to fight it all of these years.

Your argument is meaningless, because Congress did pass the law controlling what the government could do, and the government pretty much did it. We could have guessed that from the start without too much trouble.

This is also an issue that didn't just randomly start with PRISM. It is fine to use this as a testbed for whether we can have secret court oversight of secret programs, but it's not fair to hold this as a reason why PRISM itself is problematic. Even if it were a completely transparent program (which would surely defeat some of the purpose), we'd still be having this fight. Whether or not the government should be allowed to have secret programs is just one of those things that is tricky to answer. The world is not black and white, and some of the responses to PRISM that I've seen in this forum and the media suggest otherwise.

It seems reasonable to me that gathering all communication information on every citizen without a warrant or just cause should be considered unreasonable.

So the Fourth Amendment litmus test is: does Woodruff think this method is reasonable?

If I'm going to be discussing the issue, then it makes sense that I would do so from my perspective, doesn't it? I mean...do you want me to try to discuss it from AOG's perspective?

No. There is a specific set of legal doctrines and case history that has evolved to answer the question of just what it means for a search to be unreasonable according to the Fourth Amendment, and additionally to answer the question of when there is an exception to the warrant rule. That is what we would be discussing, not every single person's particular view on what the Fourth Amendment ought to mean.

i don't think so. they are still monitoring what we do. they are just going to wait until this all blows over and people forget about it and carry on as usual.

So all you folks are doing in these threads is paying lip service to the idea that the government should preserve liberty more? Great success.

I'm not sure where you got that idea from what he said...

It's not just john, it's everyone here. saxi is a perfect example of this. He seems to take great pride in stating that he opposes the administration's actions here, and that others ought to be too, but no one is offering concrete advice on 1) how we get the government to stop doing what it is currently doing and 2) what the government ought to be doing instead. john's perspective seems awfully pessimistic: "this sucks, but there's not much we can do about it." Well, citizens have the power to be part of the lawmaking process, and we should use it if we are passionate. Let's talk about what to do. Signing an online petition is not enough.

Mostly I just get annoyed by online circle-jerks where people come and complain about how the government is doing bad stuff, and then say that nothing will change because people aren't opening their eyes. Well, there's Exhibit A of why nothing gets done (not accusing you in particular of this, Woodruff).

[Night Strike]

But before the federal court sat, another election took place and the winners of that vote had a clear platform that they would not defend Prop 8, therefore the people by voting the new officials in that they chose effectively overturned their previous vote.

There was no change in administrative policies. It was the old government in place when the Prop 8 suits started, which is why Arnold was named as a party of the lawsuit. Brown was the attorney general when the suit started and is now governor. When the previous administration refused to take up the lawsuit, the lower courts, along with the state supreme court, agreed that public groups who supported the law could defend it. While it was going through the appeals process, the administration changed but their policy didn't, so the public groups chose to keep defending it. The Supreme Court decided those people couldn't keep defending it, which was their decision in the Prop 8 case.

But the point is that there was a change in public opinion, the people voted a new governor in who promised not todefend Prop 8. That changed the playing field because those public groups could no longer claim to have majority electoral support. This means that they became special interest minority groups and lost a lot of political strength.

Unless you want to argue that special interest minority groups with no material interest should be allowed to defend suits against the state when the state itself believes it is neither economical nor in the public interest to fight a losing battle... is that a can of worms you want opened? What if the state wants to settle quietly out of court with the plaintiffs, do they have to check with every special interest minority group with an opinion in case they might be interested in defending it in court?

There is a difference between electing a politician who has a myriad of viewpoints and stances and voting on a single-issue balance measure. Just because a politician ran against the majority of people on this issue doesn't mean he wasn't their candidate when other issues were factored in.

And funny how a group that supported the majority position in a state referendum suddenly becomes a "special interest minority group" just because a politician doesn't like what the majority voted for. Besides, it's these "special interest minority groups" that are the originators of many such lawsuits anyway, so I guess we should just ban them from suing the government too.

[crispybits]

There's also a difference between defending yourself in court when a case is brought against you (as Califonia did, Jerry Brown himself did not defend it but his deputy Chris Kreuger did speak for the state government) and deciding whether or not to appeal the ruling by the first court that heard the case. If I was in a court case tomorrow and lost it, I would have a RIGHT to appeal, but I wouldn't have an OBLIGATION to appeal. For one thing, court cases are expensive, and I may feel that it's not worth my money or time to try and appeal a decision that I don't think I can overturn in a higher court.

Nice straw man in your second paragraph there though, asserting that the lack of standing of the people without material interest to appeal against a court decision that has no impact on their lives means that those people would have no right to sue the state should they actually be able to prove some sort of material interest. I'm sure there's not a hole so big you could fly a 747 through it in that particular argument....

[john9blue]

i don't think so. they are still monitoring what we do. they are just going to wait until this all blows over and people forget about it and carry on as usual.

So all you folks are doing in these threads is paying lip service to the idea that the government should preserve liberty more? Great success.

I'm not sure where you got that idea from what he said...

he thinks i'm saying that it's futile to protest this because it won't change anything.

i should have said that things CAN change because of this, maybe far in the future, but i don't have all that much hope that it will, and even if it does, it would be disingenuous to say that snowden "dictated" that change.

[BigBallinStalin]

i don't think so. they are still monitoring what we do. they are just going to wait until this all blows over and people forget about it and carry on as usual.

So all you folks are doing in these threads is paying lip service to the idea that the government should preserve liberty more? Great success.

I'm not sure where you got that idea from what he said...

he thinks i'm saying that it's futile to protest this because it won't change anything.

i should have said that things CAN change because of this, maybe far in the future, but i don't have all that much hope that it will, and even if it does, it would be disingenuous to say that snowden "dictated" that change.

I'm not sure what people really want. Change comes from soft resistance due to the awareness and response. Libertarians and the like have been warning about the Patriot Act and the news that came out about the NSA around 2005/2006. It seemed that most citizens ignored that--or rejected such criticism yet continued reinforcing the status quo, and now they're scratching their heads about the recent NSA events. Gee, what line of reasoning led to that predicament?

[john9blue]

I'm not sure what people really want. Change comes from soft resistance due to the awareness and response. Libertarians and the like have been warning about the Patriot Act and the news that came out about the NSA around 2005/2006. It seemed that most citizens ignored that--or rejected such criticism yet continued reinforcing the status quo, and now they're scratching their heads about the recent NSA events. Gee, what line of reasoning led to that predicament?

yeah, i think recent events have been a real eye-opener for lots of people. even reddit has been willing to criticize obama recently.

but it remains to be seen whether this will change anything. the occupy movement was bigger than this and they didn't really accomplish much at all.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm not sure what people really want. Change comes from soft resistance due to the awareness and response. Libertarians and the like have been warning about the Patriot Act and the news that came out about the NSA around 2005/2006. It seemed that most citizens ignored that--or rejected such criticism yet continued reinforcing the status quo, and now they're scratching their heads about the recent NSA events. Gee, what line of reasoning led to that predicament?

yeah, i think recent events have been a real eye-opener for lots of people. even reddit has been willing to criticize obama recently.

but it remains to be seen whether this will change anything. the occupy movement was bigger than this and they didn't really accomplish much at all.

Since they occurred during the recession, they seemed mostly about economic issues, but they (in general*) lacked the policies which more people believed in. I knew a few who traveled all the way to go to NY and protest. That sample was hardcore socialist/anti-market, and if that small sample is equivalent to the general Occupy movement, then it's no surprise they weren't taken too seriously.**

*as presented by the mainstream media--which probably undermined their effectiveness, but I'm not so sure.

**Police were effective in shutting down at least a dialogue. I didn't enjoy that kind of response.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm pretty sure all of us here are aware of this. The Electronic Freedom Foundation has been fighting this battle since well before the FISA amendments of 2008 were instituted (they started in 2005, I believe). Just because there is a law on the books doesn't make it reasonable or Constitutional. As well, what motivation does Congress have for rolling it back? None, as far as as I can tell.

There's a lot of people in this forum feigning shock and horror at the administration, given that "all of us" are aware of this.

I don't think it's "shock and horror", I think it's "let's talk about this thing that's now being discussed nationwide".

In my case, its more like "yeah.. now tell me something new". Having grow up being taught by "war protesting hippies" and assorted others who were of age or came of age in the Vietnam era, I have been hearing about various government "oversights" for years. Some of it was paranoia, but overall the theme has been that the government could do this, just usually cannot be bothered.

The thing is, what are we to do about it? I don't mean that as a rhetoric "nothing", but the biggest problem is we give a "no big deal" to all the companies that now collect private information. it USED to be that the government was the only entity to do so, and while it could be so abused, in general there were quite a few checks for the government. There still are, though I would no like a few more. BUT... and this cannot be emphasized enough, private companies are now not just capable of getting, but ARE obtaining information most people don't even suspect. Anyone who uses the internet, and most people who shop are fully and completely tracked now in ways that the worst Vietnahm era, Orwellian doomsayer even imagined. And no, "the market" won't control it because there is no limit to "the market" in this, only a heck of a lot of profit... a lot as yet unrealized.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm not sure what people really want. Change comes from soft resistance due to the awareness and response. Libertarians and the like have been warning about the Patriot Act and the news that came out about the NSA around 2005/2006. It seemed that most citizens ignored that--or rejected such criticism yet continued reinforcing the status quo, and now they're scratching their heads about the recent NSA events. Gee, what line of reasoning led to that predicament?

yeah, i think recent events have been a real eye-opener for lots of people. even reddit has been willing to criticize obama recently.

but it remains to be seen whether this will change anything. the occupy movement was bigger than this and they didn't really accomplish much at all.

Since they occurred during the recession, they seemed mostly about economic issues, but they (in general*) lacked the policies which more people believed in. I knew a few who traveled all the way to go to NY and protest. That sample was hardcore socialist/anti-market, and if that small sample is equivalent to the general Occupy movement, then it's no surprise they weren't taken too seriously.**

*as presented by the mainstream media--which probably undermined their effectiveness, but I'm not so sure.

**Police were effective in shutting down at least a dialogue. I didn't enjoy that kind of response.

You seriously believe anything at all was accomplished, other than identifying a few more "trouble makers?".

[Woodruff]

I'm not sure what people really want. Change comes from soft resistance due to the awareness and response. Libertarians and the like have been warning about the Patriot Act and the news that came out about the NSA around 2005/2006. It seemed that most citizens ignored that--or rejected such criticism yet continued reinforcing the status quo, and now they're scratching their heads about the recent NSA events. Gee, what line of reasoning led to that predicament?

yeah, i think recent events have been a real eye-opener for lots of people. even reddit has been willing to criticize obama recently.

Heh...you must only hang out in "r/politics". They've always been fervently pro-Obama...it's really just a Democratic cesspool promoted by pro-Democrat moderators who actually get rid of anything that isn't pro-Democrat. You should definitely unsubscribe from that sub-reddit and pay attention to others. Most of Reddit isn't very supportive of Obama at all, and hasn't been for quite some time.

[Woodruff]

I'm not sure what people really want. Change comes from soft resistance due to the awareness and response. Libertarians and the like have been warning about the Patriot Act and the news that came out about the NSA around 2005/2006. It seemed that most citizens ignored that--or rejected such criticism yet continued reinforcing the status quo, and now they're scratching their heads about the recent NSA events. Gee, what line of reasoning led to that predicament?

yeah, i think recent events have been a real eye-opener for lots of people. even reddit has been willing to criticize obama recently.

but it remains to be seen whether this will change anything. the occupy movement was bigger than this and they didn't really accomplish much at all.

Since they occurred during the recession, they seemed mostly about economic issues, but they (in general*) lacked the policies which more people believed in. I knew a few who traveled all the way to go to NY and protest. That sample was hardcore socialist/anti-market, and if that small sample is equivalent to the general Occupy movement, then it's no surprise they weren't taken too seriously.**

*as presented by the mainstream media--which probably undermined their effectiveness, but I'm not so sure.

**Police were effective in shutting down at least a dialogue. I didn't enjoy that kind of response.

You seriously believe anything at all was accomplished, other than identifying a few more "trouble makers?".

It was here in Nebraska. We were actually able to sit down and speak with our legislatures several times, both in our state government and our Congresscritters. I'm not sure anything necessarily came of it (nothing specific I can point to as having happened law-wise), but the dialogue was definitely there, and they certainly gave the impression of taking it seriously. Which is kind of funny...as hardcore conservative as Nebraska fundamentally is, it's also pretty open-minded about at least looking at things. And they didn't sic the police on us for brutality either, rather the police were there legitimately for our protection.

I'm still disappointed that the Tea Party and Operation Wall Street never got together, as they should have.

[PLAYER57832]

It was here in Nebraska. We were actually able to sit down and speak with our legislatures several times, both in our state government and our Congresscritters. I'm not sure anything necessarily came of it (nothing specific I can point to as having happened law-wise), but the dialogue was definitely there, and they certainly gave the impression of taking it seriously. Which is kind of funny...as hardcore conservative as Nebraska fundamentally is, it's also pretty open-minded about at least looking at things. And they didn't sic the police on us for brutality either, rather the police were there legitimately for our protection.

Except, the ability to sit down with our elected officials has ALWAYS existed. I mean, no, I could not sit down with either Bush or Obama, but I have absolutely talked with a good many of my federal and state representatives, includiing my Senators and House representatives, in the various states where I lived. Some definitely knew me by name, do know me... and have altered legislation in a few cases as a result. (though of course not always going as far as I want, and not always in the direction I wish).

But, the real point is that the issues these folks were protesting really lay outside the realm of the legislators. They were fighting too many generalities, not specific issues, and protesting instead of going and actually talking to people, convincing people to make change.

I'm still disappointed that the Tea Party and Operation Wall Street never got together, as they should have.

Why would you imagine that? They were two fundamentally different groups with entirely different goals!

The tea party was essentially a "trickle up" movement... a pretense of helping people by cutting taxes, when most people protesting were actually gaining far more from those taxes than those at the top, ditto power... denuding the government means less power for individual people and far more for the biggest corporations.

The Operation Wall street got the problem essentially correct, but chose an extremely ineffective and almost stupid means of attempting to spread their message.

The problem today is far too much economic inequality, which is more and more becoming power and knowledge inequalities. Those have always existed, but not in the current extremes. On top of that, we have massive environmental issues that will soon supersede any petty political or economic will debates.

[Woodruff]

It was here in Nebraska. We were actually able to sit down and speak with our legislatures several times, both in our state government and our Congresscritters. I'm not sure anything necessarily came of it (nothing specific I can point to as having happened law-wise), but the dialogue was definitely there, and they certainly gave the impression of taking it seriously. Which is kind of funny...as hardcore conservative as Nebraska fundamentally is, it's also pretty open-minded about at least looking at things. And they didn't sic the police on us for brutality either, rather the police were there legitimately for our protection.

Except, the ability to sit down with our elected officials has ALWAYS existed.

Then perhaps you can point to the other OWS groups who were able to sit down with their legislatures as a group several times over the course of about four months?

But, the real point is that the issues these folks were protesting really lay outside the realm of the legislators. They were fighting too many generalities, not specific issues, and protesting instead of going and actually talking to people, convincing people to make change.

That's the view of OWS that the media portrayed, yes.

I'm still disappointed that the Tea Party and Operation Wall Street never got together, as they should have.

Why would you imagine that? They were two fundamentally different groups with entirely different goals!

I disagree very strongly. Yes, on a superficial level, they had different goals. Operation Wall Street was about the 1%. The Tea Party is about getting taxes down. Yet I would suggest that getting some of the money away from the 1% has real potential for lowering taxes (if the two were attacked together), in the form of the need for welfare reform. That's just one example. The two groups were not at all as disparate as many would presume or as the media would portray them. They definitely did not have to be rivals.

I was involved with both groups. You seem to know about both groups only through the media.