Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Scotus Blog)   News: SCOTUS "genuinely concerned" about government wiretapping program. Fark: Concerned for LAWYERS. UltraFark: Because it might put lawyers in an "ethical bind"   (scotusblog.com) divider line 22
    More: Asinine, UltraFark, U.S. Supreme Court, intelligence assessment, wiretaps, standing to sue, Anthony M. Kennedy, oral arguments, Scalia  
•       •       •

1002 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Oct 2012 at 3:33 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



22 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-29 03:36:38 PM  
Raise your hand if you're offended that we have a secret court to determine if the government has overstepped its constitutional bounds when wiretapping its citizens in the first place.
 
2012-10-29 03:37:21 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-29 03:38:41 PM  
News: SCOTUS concerned about ethics. FARK: Roberts, Thomas, Scalia members of SCOTUS.
 
2012-10-29 03:40:51 PM  

meat0918: Raise your hand if you're offended that we have a secret court to determine if the government has overstepped its constitutional bounds when wiretapping its citizens in the first place.


i1127.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-29 03:52:05 PM  

meat0918: Raise your hand if you're offended that we have a secret court to determine if the government has overstepped its constitutional bounds when wiretapping its citizens in the first place.


Me too. And even worse than that, we have a Supreme Court AND a Congress that doesn't give a damn. I don't subscribe to the "both sides are equally bad" meme but on this subject it is hard to say which party is worse. I expect such perfidy from Republicans but it is arguably worse when you are betrayed by the "leftist" Democrats who are more afraid of being accused of being "soft on (blank)" than they are in defending constitutional protections. And they are terrified of doing anything that might damage Obama.

Today I doubt one solon out of 100 would get the answer right if they were asked "what is the purpose of the Supreme Court?"

The correct answer is that SCOTUS is supposed to be the final protector of the powerless. Can anyone credibly claim that this is what they are today? No way.
 
2012-10-29 03:57:13 PM  

AntiNerd: Today I doubt one solon out of 100 would get the answer right if they were asked "what is the purpose of the Supreme Court?"

The correct answer is that SCOTUS is supposed to be the final protector of the powerless.


I'm not sure where you got that. Saying this as someone who generally values and appreciates our legal system (I'd better; I'm part of it), I would nonetheless remind you that SCOTUS, like all courts, is not a court of justice. It's a court of law. It's an important difference, and it ought to be borne in mind.
 
2012-10-29 03:58:10 PM  

meat0918: Raise your hand if you're offended that we have a secret court to determine if the government has overstepped its constitutional bounds when wiretapping its citizens in the first place.


Oh, and this.
 
2012-10-29 04:04:32 PM  
So we're still pretending that lawyers, and by extension SCOTUS, has ethics?
 
2012-10-29 04:04:34 PM  
Some presidential candidates are actually against government surveillance of its citizens...

/this was one of the big general issues that weighed in my vote decision
 
2012-10-29 04:11:28 PM  

BMulligan: I'm not sure where you got that. Saying this as someone who generally values and appreciates our legal system (I'd better; I'm part of it), I would nonetheless remind you that SCOTUS, like all courts, is not a court of justice. It's a court of law. It's an important difference, and it ought to be borne in mind.


You are correct and that is the court's function. It's purpose was originally to allow the rule of law to protect the powerless.

And this has worked in many cases. All said and done you don't have to be rich, you don't have to be elected to a powerful position, you don't have to have influence and prestige to prevail. You can be dirt poor or for that matter comatose and you can win if you simply have the LAW on your side. If you are part of the system I am sure you will be able to cite many times this has been true.

Today, SCOTUS is mostly whether Kennedy can be convinced by Roberts/Scalia to vote their ideology or not. The only recent exception to that was when Roberts decided to save the ACA for purely political self interest reasons. You cannot even prevail based on the Bill of Rights anymore. You have no right to protection unreasonable search and seizure any more. You can be disappeared based on Obama's "kill list" that neither you and I are not privy to and the Roberts court will be perfectly OK with it. So please tell me how SCOTUS as operating as a court of law again.
 
2012-10-29 04:11:44 PM  

BMulligan: AntiNerd: Today I doubt one solon out of 100 would get the answer right if they were asked "what is the purpose of the Supreme Court?"

The correct answer is that SCOTUS is supposed to be the final protector of the powerless.

I'm not sure where you got that. Saying this as someone who generally values and appreciates our legal system (I'd better; I'm part of it), I would nonetheless remind you that SCOTUS, like all courts, is not a court of justice. It's a court of law. It's an important difference, and it ought to be borne in mind.


Yes and no. SCOTUS is generally considered to be the protector of justice, minorities, equal rights, yadda yadda because that the judicial system is where you go to have your rights protected under state and federal Constitutions against the tyranny of the majority/the powerful. It's where African Americans got the right to go to school with Caucasians (Brown), it's where homosexuals got the right to have sex (Lawrence), it's where laws that discriminated against women were made illegal (Reed). Etc. etc. And in the next few years, I suspect it may be where laws barring gays from having equal rights may be found unconstitutional as well.

/not a lawyer
//will hopefully be one in 5 days
 
2012-10-29 04:13:04 PM  

Emposter: BMulligan: AntiNerd: Today I doubt one solon out of 100 would get the answer right if they were asked "what is the purpose of the Supreme Court?"

The correct answer is that SCOTUS is supposed to be the final protector of the powerless.

I'm not sure where you got that. Saying this as someone who generally values and appreciates our legal system (I'd better; I'm part of it), I would nonetheless remind you that SCOTUS, like all courts, is not a court of justice. It's a court of law. It's an important difference, and it ought to be borne in mind.

Yes and no. SCOTUS is generally considered to be the protector of justice, minorities, equal rights, yadda yadda because that the judicial system is where you go to have your rights protected under state and federal Constitutions against the tyranny of the majority/the powerful. It's where African Americans got the right to go to school with Caucasians (Brown), it's where homosexuals got the right to have sex (Lawrence), it's where laws that discriminated against women were made illegal (Reed). Etc. etc. And in the next few years, I suspect it may be where laws barring gays from having equal rights may be found unconstitutional as well.

/not a lawyer
//will hopefully be one in 5 days


Edit: correction to self, I wrote that poorly. It's not where they got the rights, it where those rights were enforced. Technically speaking.
 
2012-10-29 04:27:55 PM  
They sound concerned.
 
2012-10-29 04:57:34 PM  

Emposter: Emposter: BMulligan: AntiNerd: Today I doubt one solon out of 100 would get the answer right if they were asked "what is the purpose of the Supreme Court?"

The correct answer is that SCOTUS is supposed to be the final protector of the powerless.

I'm not sure where you got that. Saying this as someone who generally values and appreciates our legal system (I'd better; I'm part of it), I would nonetheless remind you that SCOTUS, like all courts, is not a court of justice. It's a court of law. It's an important difference, and it ought to be borne in mind.

Yes and no. SCOTUS is generally considered to be the protector of justice, minorities, equal rights, yadda yadda because that the judicial system is where you go to have your rights protected under state and federal Constitutions against the tyranny of the majority/the powerful. It's where African Americans got the right to go to school with Caucasians (Brown), it's where homosexuals got the right to have sex (Lawrence), it's where laws that discriminated against women were made illegal (Reed). Etc. etc. And in the next few years, I suspect it may be where laws barring gays from having equal rights may be found unconstitutional as well.

/not a lawyer
//will hopefully be one in 5 days

Edit: correction to self, I wrote that poorly. It's not where they got the rights, it where those rights were enforced. Technically speaking.


Thank you for that correction (I base my whole political worldview on that concept), and good luck on the bar exam (I assume that′s what you meant by becoming a lawyer in five days?).
 
2012-10-29 04:59:18 PM  

GanjSmokr: Some presidential candidates are actually against government surveillance of its citizens...

/this was one of the big general issues that weighed in my vote decision


I too encourage all of you who want to take out country back to vote Gary Johnson.
 
2012-10-29 05:10:39 PM  

Blue_Blazer: GanjSmokr: Some presidential candidates are actually against government surveillance of its citizens...

/this was one of the big general issues that weighed in my vote decision

I too encourage all of you who want to take out country back to vote Gary Johnson.


Agreed. He won't win, but I trust him more than I trust the other two.
 
2012-10-29 05:10:50 PM  

COMALite J: Emposter: Emposter: BMulligan: AntiNerd: Today I doubt one solon out of 100 would get the answer right if they were asked "what is the purpose of the Supreme Court?"

The correct answer is that SCOTUS is supposed to be the final protector of the powerless.

I'm not sure where you got that. Saying this as someone who generally values and appreciates our legal system (I'd better; I'm part of it), I would nonetheless remind you that SCOTUS, like all courts, is not a court of justice. It's a court of law. It's an important difference, and it ought to be borne in mind.

Yes and no. SCOTUS is generally considered to be the protector of justice, minorities, equal rights, yadda yadda because that the judicial system is where you go to have your rights protected under state and federal Constitutions against the tyranny of the majority/the powerful. It's where African Americans got the right to go to school with Caucasians (Brown), it's where homosexuals got the right to have sex (Lawrence), it's where laws that discriminated against women were made illegal (Reed). Etc. etc. And in the next few years, I suspect it may be where laws barring gays from having equal rights may be found unconstitutional as well.

/not a lawyer
//will hopefully be one in 5 days

Edit: correction to self, I wrote that poorly. It's not where they got the rights, it where those rights were enforced. Technically speaking.

Thank you for that correction (I base my whole political worldview on that concept), and good luck on the bar exam (I assume that′s what you meant by becoming a lawyer in five days?).


Just waiting for the results, assuming I don't drown in the blizzardcanepocalypse first. Thanks!
 
2012-10-29 05:12:33 PM  
Verrilli's strongest point, though, was that the Justices could trust a specialized federal court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which operates entirely in secrecy, to act as a sufficient check on excessive use of foreign intelligence wiretapping. Justice Antonin Scalia, in particular, was a strong defender of indulging in just that kind of trust. If there are constitutional violations, Scalia said, that court will ferret them out.

i45.tinypic.com
 
2012-10-29 06:29:15 PM  

meat0918: Raise your hand if you're offended that we have a secret court to determine if the government has overstepped its constitutional bounds when wiretapping its citizens in the first place.


Better than the opposite.
 
2012-10-29 10:36:18 PM  
As we move away from landlines to smart phone, it's getting easier and easier to make most of your calls encrypted. Download voip apps with encryption (do not use skype), get your friends to do it, and then use it to call them whenever possible. It's not only a great way to flip off the government, but the more people using encryption, the more normalized it becomes, which makes it easier for people who have legitimate needs for encryption to hide among all the regular people using it.
 
2012-10-29 11:00:50 PM  

LoneWolf343: meat0918: Raise your hand if you're offended that we have a secret court to determine if the government has overstepped its constitutional bounds when wiretapping its citizens in the first place.

Better than the opposite.


How the hell would we know?!
 
2012-10-30 01:04:17 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: As we move away from landlines to smart phone, it's getting easier and easier to make most of your calls encrypted. Download voip apps with encryption (do not use skype), get your friends to do it, and then use it to call them whenever possible. It's not only a great way to flip off the government, but the more people using encryption, the more normalized it becomes, which makes it easier for people who have legitimate needs for encryption to hide among all the regular people using it.


This is exactly the line of reasoning I used when I distributed copies of PGP to all my friends, almost 20 years ago now. Sadly, none of them started encrypting their emails as a matter of course.
 
Displayed 22 of 22 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report