The originalists on the Supreme Court understand that the Constitution is not a suicide pact, per Mr. Justice Jackson. …

I’ve deleted the previous post and much of this one in order to focus on this small part which is a political argument in itself.

Republicans have been saying “The Constitution is not a suicide pact” for quite some time. I don’t know who among them began using it, but it’s emblematic of their philosophy that ‘government is the problem, not the solution’.

What they mean to say (fully) is that we should not accept horrific results by constraining ourselves to upholding the Constitution. We shouldn’t accept that it’s a suicide pact and go to our fates. Instead we should challenge the Constitution or find wiggle room around it’s Law, so we can survive.

However, inherent in that argument is that there is some freedom for a federal officer, whether that is a Supreme Court justice, a President, a Congressman or a Senator, to NOT uphold the Constitution. Bush is pushing, in his typical bully style, to find all the weaknesses and all the wiggle room and all the ways around Law to get his way (just like a 3-year-old). In short, they are saying on one hand that we are in danger for our lives and we cannot support a Constitution which inhibits us from protecting our lives. Just what in that Constitution is inhibiting them from protecting us isn’t clear, and they don’t want to make it clear.

Basically, this is their way of overthrowing the Constitution with political argument and these small, but very significant cases (like Padilla, FISA and the like) to prove that when push comes to shove the People would rather have a dictator to protect their lives than a Constitution.

They are arguing for and pushing for the destruction of the Constitution! They are traitors to America.

But the law changed with the FISA fix, and this case is now moot:

Though getting almost no attention in the U.S. press coverage, the immunity paragraph reads: “Notwithstanding any other law, no cause of action shall lie in any court against any person for providing any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a directive under this section.”

In other words, U.S. citizens, who believe that warrantless surveillance has violated their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure, will have no legal recourse against the service provider that collaborated with the government.

This immunity provision is important, too, because the only meaningful safeguard against abuse of the new spying power was that service providers could challenge a wiretap directive through a secret court proceeding.

[Emphasis mine.}

See http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/081307.html

One other thing about immunity clauses: they cannot be repealed. You can make it a crime to do “X” from some point forward, but you can never undo the immunity for the time in which it was given (Violates the Ex Post Facto clause of the Constitution).

Unless they file a motion for “change of venue” to the FISC (FISA court), they will be reversed for “lack of standing”, just like the ACLU case. If the judge takes “judicial notice” of evidence that has been removed from his court, he will be reversed on that ground.

No good way forward unless you go before a court that can hear secret things – and never publishes an opinion, so no one else can benefit.

Gawd, I just want to strangle something now. ugh

Mr. Kellogg is quite the bluffer. He knows that individuals are waiting for the SCOTUS ruling. If the ruling ignores the law and favors ATT, the individuals are going to produce the smoking gun evidence of illegal activity. It should be quite interesting watching the high court wiping the egg off their reputations.

Elliott at 15 — We don’t. The only reason that we know about AT&T at all is because the government screwed up during discovery and handed defense counsel a memo that specifically discussed AT&T’s involvement — although even saying that here in the comments is probably a no no because they’ve declared their own mistake a state secret. *g*

It wasn’t on an employee’s hinting?

Happy birthday Wordsmith!

Thank you. I missed yours. How about some fish?

masaccio @ 126

Liberty Lee, are you really afraid of terrorism? If you are, would you explain what is so frightening?

I do not want my way of life destroyed by Sharia law enforced with the power of guns and terror. I want to live my Western style of life uncluttered by these enemies who are trying to kill us everytime we fly or spread deadly diseases or chemicals or bomb our cities because we live too near ports because they don’t like Jews or Christians or just plain Americans. On the theory that we have to kill them before they kill us.

Wow. There it is, folks. In all its awful glory.

And it’s strange that the Constitution was not voided even during the War of 1812 when the British actually DID invade and burn down Washington DC. There was no suspension of habeas corpus, and the government didn’t open and inspect the contents of mail without warrants.

In fact, the Constitution was created at a time when there were major insurrections in the United States. There was a very real risk of the collapse of the nation and a descent into anarchy. Yet the Framers STILL incorporated these protections into the document.

Your insane fears that some sort of mass takeover by invading Islamists forcing you to abide by Shari’a law is interesting, though. Seen a psychiatrist about this problem lately?

My mother has had Alzheimer’s for ten years, so I’m well acquainted with the phases and alternatives for care. My beef with Sandra Day O’Connor goes back to her scoffing at 2000 Florida voters (read old, senile) who couldn’t figure out the butterfly ballot. My young, smart cousin in Florida is sure his vote for Gore did not go through and his wife made sure only by leaving the voting booth and holding the ballot up to the window. Sandra Day O’Connor cast the deciding vote imho that gave us President Bush. This vote came right after her much publicized dinner drama about whether she could retire unless there was a Republican President in office. I think the reaction to her decision to retire is fraught for many of us with an already frustrated relationship with the most important member of the Supreme Court.

I agree, and as I note at 159, I think not only was she voting on the “right” side of the issues more often at the end, but when you compare her to Thomas, even her 25% far supercded whatever he could offer.

All big stick and no carrot doesn’t entirely work. It simply doesn’t. The sooner we learn that, the better off we will all be over the long run and not just the short run. This needs to be done in a smart and long-term way, not a short-term stopgap with long-term bad consequences way, which is how things have been done for far too long. Squandering the good will we had in our pockets after 9/11 was a grievous error and one that I fear we will be paying for a long time yet.