Patterico's Pontifications

12/16/2013

Judge: Collection of Metadata Probably Violates the Constitution

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:42 pm

An interesting opinion that I do not have time to digest for you. Check out Allahpundit’s analysis here.

11 Comments

  1. Bing. There’s a surprise.

    Comment by Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 12/16/2013 @ 8:44 pm

  2. I’ll believe it when I see it.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (84b87c) — 12/16/2013 @ 9:08 pm

  3. Ho-hum, ok. If the Court of Appeals upholds him, the case will get to SCOTUS. Probably the only interesting question is whether Congress can take the constitutionality of FISA out of the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts under Article III. Because there is no Fourth Amendment. There is Fourth Amendment jurisprudence which is not the same thing at all. It is what five Supreme Court justices say from time to time.

    Will Mar bury Madison? Will Mary land Smith? Will Dr. Kildare find happiness with Daniela Bianchi or will she return to Russia with love? Stay tuned for the next exciting episode of Days of Our Freedom Fries.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 12/16/2013 @ 9:45 pm

  4. You’d have to be insane to believe the NSA will let themselves be significantly constrained by the courts. They’ll use leverage to keep what they’ve got if necessary, and to expand it.

    The only thing that might possibly work is widespread and sustained public outrage.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/16/2013 @ 10:01 pm

  5. Ho-hum, ok. If the Court of Appeals upholds him, the case will get to SCOTUS. Probably the only interesting question is whether Congress can take the constitutionality of FISA out of the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts under Article III. Because there is no Fourth Amendment. There is Fourth Amendment jurisprudence which is not the same thing at all. It is what five Supreme Court justices say from time to time.

    Yep.

    And the only way Congress does this is with the aforementioned, and unlikely, sustained public outrage.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/16/2013 @ 10:05 pm

  6. This will go to the newly-packed DC circuit.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/16/2013 @ 11:54 pm

  7. If the case ever gets to SCOTUS, NSA will certainly prevail. The Chief Justice is in Obama’s pocket, and when he tugs on those strings Obama’s words come out of Roberts’ mouth. Obama owns Roberts.

    Comment by ropelight (0e16f2) — 12/17/2013 @ 5:17 am

  8. “Getting something done” does not mean what you think it means parasite:

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/16/Gallup-For-Americans-Government-Is-The-Biggest-Problem

    It me means sunsetting bureaucracy, closing Departments, layoffs of several hundreds of thousands, in short undoing your bipartisan bestest efforts.

    No one who does not run on this pledge alone will get my vote.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 12/17/2013 @ 7:07 am

  9. crickets when this decision came;

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2013/12/17/ny-judge-rules-against-government-on-hhs-mandate/

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/17/2013 @ 7:11 am

  10. Gallup-For-Americans-Government-Is-The-Biggest-Problem

    I have to disagree with Frances Martell at breitbart.com when she writes:


    Every other problem on the list save for “moral/ethical decline,” “lack of respect for each other,” and “threat of war” are either directly caused or exacerbated by the government.

    I’m even more puzzled why she doesn’t think our increasingly left-leaning government (or, plural, governmentS, local, state and federal) isn’t fostering peculiar trends like the following, which she wrote about yesterday:

    North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem filed a legal opinion last week confirming that the state does not recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages, allowing a man married to another man to come to North Dakota and marry a woman without divorcing his husband.

    While many wildly speculated that the legalization of same-sex marriage could lead to polygamy, they probably never thought it would be like this. Presented with a legal hypothetical, Attorney General Stenehjem answered three questions: whether someone in a same-sex marriage in another state can also receive a marriage license to someone of the opposite sex in North Dakota, whether they can file legal documents as “Single” when they possess a same-sex marriage license in another state, and whether this would open the individual up for prosecution under another state’s bigamy laws.

    The answer to all these questions, essentially, is that a person can legally possess two marriage licenses in North Dakota, because a same-sex marriage license is not recognized. The Attorney General did not comment on whether such a situation would lead to a bigamy charge in another state, suggesting it was “inappropriate” to comment on laws outside of North Dakota.

    ^ I now realize it’s truly not a case of being snarky to say that our do-gooder laws have to be expanded to accommodate the status of bisexuals. Therefore, the need for polygamy is a given.

    Kum-ba-ya, y’all.

    Comment by Mark (58ea35) — 12/17/2013 @ 7:45 am

  11. say thanks to so much for your web site it assists a great deal.

    Comment by website (84267b) — 12/19/2013 @ 5:20 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1850 secs.