In case the peons that Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas believe should be kissing their ring and other parts of their anatomy daily haven’t gotten the message via the many many significant cert. denials this term–

Yes Virginia–You don’t got no 4th Amendment. It died ages ago with “Rule of Law.” Rule of Law is what they’re trying to get going in Iraq and Afghanistan and countrys where women who are raped receive jail terms and lashes for bein’ in the car or the crib with other men isn’t it? It’s what cerebral Laura Bush is all smiles about distributin’ to them Arab countries courtesy of the quest for mo bettah oil for Exxon that poor people’s children get blown up for.

Your 4th Amendment and Rule of Law At the Bottom of the River Called Cert. Denial

Yes Virginny! We Be da Soopremes and We Done Took your 4th Amendment Lock, Stock, and Barrel

I’m curious. Has the Salvation Army stopped being homophobic? Didn’t they throw those NYC women out of their homes? (Not trying to be a pissant…)

Today I dropped a quarter in the pot and asked, “How much money would I have to give to make you stop ringing that bell?” The lady said sincerely, “You don’t have enough money.” Naturally, I had to agree, “You’re right, I don’t have enough money.” Sad, but true.

I hate that constant bell ringing.
And, I hate not having enough money.

tw3k @ 99

bobschacht @ 86

Bob, do you have that Priming the Pump wiki link handy?

Here it is. Sorry I didn’t see this earlier.

Bob

Thx!

my family is vacationing in iraq this year.

everything is just fine.

bobschacht @ 86

Bob, do you have that Priming the Pump wiki link handy?

Here it is. Sorry I didn’t see this earlier.

Bob

Bc of the historical Church Committee references in the post – here’s some history on the Keith Case, where Gov asserted their warrantless (illegal) wiretaps should be protected (stop me if this sounds familiary) as a state secret. [I put some of this up at in a comment at The Next Hurrah awhile back]
http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/h…..spdf/Court Legacy 11-03.pdf

When the defense made a request for any surveillance tapes,

… the government’s “bricks and mortar” case suffered its first real set back. In response to the defense/prosecution stipulation, Attorney General Mitchell filed a sworn affidavit with the court stating that: Defendant Plamondon has participated in conversations which were overheard by government agents who were monitoring wiretaps which were being employed to gather intelligence information deemed necessary to protect the nation from attempts of domestic organizations to attack and subvert the existing structure of government.

Accompanying this affidavit, sealed records and files were submitted for the review and inspection of the Court in camera. Simultaneously, the government filed a motion to dismiss the defendants’ request for disclosure of the surveillance evidence. In his affidavit and in the government’s brief, the Attorney General certified that public disclosure of the facts concerning surveillance of the defendants would prejudice the national interest, …

In his decision granting the defendants’ motion to disclose government surveillance, Judge Keith rejected the government’s position, known as the “Mitchell Doctrine,” which asserted that the Attorney General, as a representative of the Executive Branch, had the inherent constitutional power both to authorize electronic surveillance in “national security” cases without judicial warrant and to unilaterally determine whether
a particular circumstance falls within the scope of a “national security” concern.

Just remember – the denial of the Mitchell Doctrine has been to the Sup Ct and is precedent.

The Sup Ct. has looked at the balancing of an invocation by an AG of state secrets based on national security concerns v. a court’s examination of the illegal or unconstitutional activities of the Executive Branch making that assertion, and said nah – you can’t break the law (or violate the Constitution) and then escape judicial review merely by classifying your actions as secret. That’s the Keith case to a T.

It even had the arguments of “don’t all these domestic activities tie to foreign power threats and make it foreign and more exclusively Executive Branch” that DOJ is claiming now.

http://www.time.com/time/magaz…..-1,00.html

The tap was perfectly legal, they said, even though it had been installed without a judicial warrant, because warrants are not necessary in cases involving a threat to “national security.” This is true not only for the traditional danger from a foreign power, the Justice Department maintains, but also for the security threat posed by the current radical protest movement. Besides, the Government said, the overheard conversations had nothing to do with the bombing charges, and the tap was on the phone of another organization, not the White Panthers.
…
In his argument to the Supreme Court last week, U.S. Solicitor General Erwin Griswold insisted that radical protests within the U.S. are “interrelated” with security threats from abroad. The Government was merely gathering intelligence to protect the nation, he said, not deliberately seeking evidence for criminal prosecutions. If each case had to be submitted to a judge to get a warrant, Griswold added, “the Government would have to disclose sensitive and highly secret information.” Judges, he said, are not as qualified as the Attorney General to make the “subtle inferences” involved. Even though the Attorney General might abuse his power, that “is not a valid basis for denying [him] the authority.”

One more resources, just to give some flavor:

http://www.nlgchicago.org/us-v-dist-ct.shtml

Responding to defense motions, the government admitted that they had obtained evidence from a bugged phone, and that there was no warrant. While defense lawyers and Judge Damon J. Keith sat open-mouthed, the government tendered an affidavit from the attorney general, John Mitchell — soon to be of Watergate infamy. Mitchell stated in writing that he, on behalf of the president, had the authority to order wiretaps without judicial approval to “protect the nation from attempts of domestic organizations to attack and subvert the government.”
…

By itself, this case might have been a weird wrinkle in turbulent times. When comparing notes nationally, though, progressive defense lawyers realized there was a pattern. Mitchell had done the same thing in the Chicago 7 / 8 case [internal link] and in a Black Panther trial in California. Something was up. The attorneys came to a conclusion that shocked them: The Justice Department was openly demanding judicial approval of a scheme in which the president alone, without legislative advice or consent, without judicial oversight, decided when the Bill of Rights [internal link] would be suspended, and which citizens’ rights would be overborne. The designation “subversive” would not be defined. “Probable cause,” the ancient, Constitutional requirement, would not be shown. The lawyers were aghast not only at the arrogance of the government’s position. They feared that the government might win. Mitchell’s Justice Department would not have opted for this strategy — no longer denying the illegal bugs, but admitting them, and telling the courts to find them legal — unless they were confident in their position.

There was also the constant drumbeat of those who objected to the war being cast as the enemy themselves and this was mentioned in oral argument:

He said that two weeks previously, a Nixon administration official (H.R. Haldeman, though Kinoy didn’t name him) had claimed that the Democrats were giving “aid and comfort to the enemy.” Under the government’s scheme, such a designation would open even the political party out of power to warrantless eavesdropping by whoever held the White House.

We’ve been here before.

I’d ask, “In targeting those citizens, how many other citizens have you gathered information about?”

Go read the opinion (it’s a 12 page .pdf):

http://www.eff.org/files/filen….._order.pdf

Here’s what they wanted, and what the judge compelled the government to produce:

On August 31, 2007, plaintiff faxed two letters to defendant that requested, under FOIA, all records from April 2007 to August 31, 2007 concerning briefings, discussions, or other exchanges that Director McConnell or ODNI officials have had concerning amendments to FISA with (a) representatives of telecommunications companies, and (b) offices of members of the Senate or House of Representatives, including any discussions immunizing telecommunications companies or holding them otherwise unaccountable for their role in government surveillance activities. Hoffman Decl. Exs. K & L.