You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: WoT
Supreme court won't review Bush domestic spying case
2008-02-19
The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned down a legal challenge to the warrantless domestic spying program President George W. Bush created after the September 11 attacks.

The American Civil Liberties Union had asked the justices to hear the case after a lower court ruled the ACLU, other groups and individuals that sued the government had no legal right to do so because they could not prove they had been affected by the program. The civil liberties group also asked the nation's highest court to make clear that Bush does not have the power under the U.S. Constitution to engage in intelligence surveillance within the United States that Congress has expressly prohibited.

"The president is bound by the laws that Congress enacts. He may disagree with those laws, but he may not disobey them," Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, said in the appeal.

Bush authorized the program to monitor international phone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens without first obtaining a court warrant. The program's disclosure in December 2005 caused a political uproar among Democrats, some Republicans and civil liberties activists. The administration abandoned the program about a year ago, putting it under the surveillance court that Congress created more than 30 years ago.

The high court's action means that Bush will be able to disregard whatever legislative eavesdropping restrictions Congress adopts as there will be no meaningful judicial review, the ACLU attorneys said.

The journalists, scholars, attorneys and national advocacy groups that filed the lawsuit said the illegal surveillance had disrupted their ability to communicate with sources and clients.
Because journalists, scholars, attorneys and national advocacy groups get their best information from terrorists and their collaborators ...
The appeals court based in Cincinnati dismissed the case because the plaintiffs could not state with certainty they had been wiretapped by the government's National Security Agency.

Administration lawyers opposed the appeal and said further review by the Supreme Court was unwarranted. The Supreme Court sided with the administration and rejected the appeal without any comment.
Posted by:tu3031

#7  The high court's action means that Bush will be able to disregard whatever legislative eavesdropping restrictions Congress adopts as there will be no meaningful judicial review, the ACLU attorneys said.

Does this mean that Speaker Pelosi's refusal to allow the House to vote on the bill to reauthorize listening in on US<->international phone calls no longer matters?
Posted by: trailing wife    2008-02-19 22:08  

#6  the article goes way too far in implying that SCOTUS denied congressional authority.

The lower court said
"The American Civil Liberties Union had asked the justices to hear the case after a lower court ruled the ACLU, other groups and individuals that sued the government had no legal right to do so because they could not prove they had been affected by the program."

IE the guys who sued had no standing. And SCOTUS left that lower court ruling standing.

What SCOTUS will rule when and if somebody who has actually been harmed and has standing goes to court, is TBD.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2008-02-19 16:32  

#5  My offer for the ACLU still stands... ESAD!
Posted by: RD   2008-02-19 16:20  

#4  "The president is bound by the laws that Congress enacts. He may disagree with those laws, but he may not disobey them," Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, said in the appeal"

Glad to see these A-brains are so up to speed on the whole separationg of powers thingy. If congress passes unconstitutional laws that conflict with his enumerated powers, the Pres. can ignore them
Posted by: Alanc   2008-02-19 15:05  

#3  Could you speak up, Jameel. We're having a little problem with the levels...heh...heh...heh.
Posted by: tu3031   2008-02-19 12:27  

#2  ACLU, on the side of America's enemies for 50 years and still going strong!
Posted by: DarthVader   2008-02-19 12:09  

#1  Obviously, the Supremes did not understand our position.

We'll just have to try again. Louder.
Posted by: ACLU   2008-02-19 11:41  

00:00