A Good Day For The Bill of Rights

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Mon Dec 16, 2013 10:01 pm

You've probably heard about the NSA ruling. Can't post a link from my phone, but the district court held that the 1979 Supreme Court ruling on phone record searches is no longer good law because times have changed.

And a district judge in Utah ruled that Utah's law criminalizing polygamy is unconstitutional.

howard · Post by **howard** » Mon Dec 16, 2013 10:11 pm

I am trying my best to let myself enjoy this ruling. And, once again, thank you Edward Snowden.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Tue Dec 17, 2013 11:35 am

Here's a quick link.

http://news.yahoo.com/judge--nsa-spying ... 01613.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Tue Dec 17, 2013 11:50 am

I keep going back and forth on what I think of Snowden. I'm glad we are finding out about what the NSA is doing, but as with Manning, I don't think it's generally good for us if people trusted with secrets publicly disclose them when they don't like something. And Snowden's disclosures of surveillance activities in other countries clearly went into the espionage territory and can't really be justified by the need to promote the Bill of Rights.

But still, yesterday's ruling, to me, is unambiguously a good thing. I hope it survives the appellate process.

For anyone who wants to read 91 pages on polygamy, here is the ruling on that one: https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/sh ... 1cv0652-78" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm happy to see that the judge relies very heavily on a dissenting opinion written by the Utah Supreme Court judge I used to clerk for.

govmentchedda · Post by **govmentchedda** » Tue Dec 17, 2013 11:51 am

It's a great fucking day for the bill of rights. It is, however, only one judge's ruling, and will surely be appealed.

Bensell · Post by **Bensell** » Tue Dec 17, 2013 1:10 pm

It will be a good day for the Bill of Rights if the government actually follows the ruling, which I highly doubt will happen even if it's upheld on appeal.

howard · Post by **howard** » Tue Dec 17, 2013 2:48 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote:I keep going back and forth on what I think of Snowden. I'm glad we are finding out about what the NSA is doing, but as with Manning, I don't think it's generally good for us if people trusted with secrets publicly disclose them when they don't like something. And Snowden's disclosures of surveillance activities in other countries clearly went into the espionage territory and can't really be justified by the need to promote the Bill of Rights.

This is a difficult issue. I know you and I generally differ on the responsibility for these two folks to honor their 1) oath as a soldier; and 2) whatever contractual or other promise to maintain secrecy.

Secrecy in government is a necessary evil. Secrecy is also frequently abused by people in government, as history documents. IMO, such abuse is inevitable, as is the growth of such abuse, the increase in depth and breath of abuse to the absurd, intolerable and clearly illegal/unconstitutional levels that threaten and restrict our very freedom and our political system. I think that unchecked, abuse of secrecy inevitably broadens and deepens until something big happens to stop it

One of the vital protections against such abuse is the willingness of people to break their oaths, their promises, or otherwise break the law, to counter the often deadly abuse.

Another frequent abuse, (which I also think is inevitable) is when a whistleblower exposes abuse of secrecy, the whistleblower is frequently falsely vilified, and the damage caused by the whistleblower is overstated (if not completely fabricated) in order to cover up the crime of abusing secrecy.

Promoting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is not the only possible justification for Snowden's disclosures of espionage activities. Espionage activities are frequently abused, just like other aspects of govt secrecy. While the abuse may be legal and constitutional, it is often deadly and just plain wrong. Sometimes justification comes down to interpretation of plain right and wrong, just as it comes to interpretation of the Constitution. A blanket justification of any and all conduct in foreign lands (especially 'during wartime') is just as irresponsible as a blanket rejection of any and all secrecy on the part of diplomatic and intelligence gathering activities of government. The proper conduct is somewhere withing a wide, gray middle zone. The proper conduct may even include murder and vacuuming up all the signals and electronic data you can possibly lay hands upon, but that is a matter of judgment and interpretation. The extreme of 'anything goes overseas' cannot be justified, regardless of the Constitution.

I view Snowden and Manning as practitioners of civil disobedience, who must be judged by the substance of their disclosures. The substance is so overwhelming, disclosures of massive lawbreaking and war crimes by our high government officials, in their own consciences as well as in my opinion by far justifies the actual harm done by their actions (not the bs harm claimed by the fucking criminals whose acts were exposed). History gets the final say on such matters. I like their chances.

WRT this case, I like the govt's attempt to eliminate standing by refusing to confirm that the program exists. Secrecy, you know. Snowden took care of that bit of lying. Just like he took care of Clapper's perjury before Congress.

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Fri Dec 20, 2013 4:39 pm

Utah judge strikes down same-sex marriage ban.

And Canada Supreme Court strikes down a bunch of anti-prostitution law.

Wow. What a week.

howard · Post by **howard** » Fri Dec 20, 2013 4:44 pm

Damn, it's good to be a libertarian!

(and to be 99% in agreement with Steve)

Post by **brian** » Fri Dec 20, 2013 6:32 pm

There's comedy, there's high comedy and then there's the conservative commentariat's response to this Utah ruling. Guess their beloved Constitution only matters when it is protecting something that they think is important. Doesn't apply to them there faggots.

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Fri Dec 20, 2013 6:41 pm

Apparently the County Clerk's office is being overrun by teh gheys and lesbos right now.

One well-known local gadfly, who happens to be the chairman of the Utah Dem Party and a long-time friend of my firm, just got married to his dude. The mayor of Salt Lake City did the ceremony.

Post by **brian** » Fri Dec 20, 2013 7:09 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote:Apparently the County Clerk's office is being overrun by teh gheys and lesbos right now.

One well-known local gadfly, who happens to be the chairman of the Utah Dem Party and a long-time friend of my firm, just got married to his dude. The mayor of Salt Lake City did the ceremony.

He was quoted in the Associated Press story I saw.

howard · Post by **howard** » Fri Dec 20, 2013 7:35 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote:One well-known local gadfly, who happens to be the chairman of the Utah Dem Party…

…but you repeat yourself

Mark Twain wrote:
Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself.

Mark Twain

Scottie · Post by **Scottie** » Fri Dec 20, 2013 7:46 pm

What's the cap on numbers here? This being polygamous Utah we're talkin' about, presumably a guy can now marry an entire football team?

Scottie · Post by **Scottie** » Fri Dec 20, 2013 8:09 pm

brian wrote:. . . Constitution only matters when it is protecting something that they think is important.

Just curious. Do you believe that same observation doesn't hold true for liberals?

howard · Post by **howard** » Fri Dec 20, 2013 11:49 pm

Not when it comes to abridging the right to keep and bear arms.

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 4:30 pm

"Utah - you can't get a real beer but you can get gay married"

- Dave in Seattle

I laughed for like a full minute

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 6:05 pm

Unless, of course you have a friend who can get on a military base...

Post by **brian** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 6:18 pm

Scottie wrote:
brian wrote:. . . Constitution only matters when it is protecting something that they think is important.
Just curious. Do you believe that same observation doesn't hold true for liberals?

Most liberals don't utter the word "Constitution" every fourth or fifth word out of their mouths.

Post by **brian** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 6:21 pm

(But since you asked I believe most liberals are pretty consistent with regards to their feelings about the importance of the Constitution INCLUDING the second amendment. Realistic regulation of firearms and weaponry has been upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional time and time again. This is why citizens can't own surface-to-air missiles or bazookas.)

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Wed Dec 25, 2013 12:03 am

The Tenth Circuit has refused to stay the judge's ruling. The state is appealing to the Supremes Thursday. It'll be interesting to see what the Supremes do, but until they rule, there's a whole lotta gay marryin' going on.

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Fri Dec 27, 2013 12:32 pm

Not as good today. Federal judge in NY rules phone metadata searches are legal:

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ny-judge ... ance-legal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

howard · Post by **howard** » Mon Jan 06, 2014 1:32 pm

Supreme Court halts same-sex marriages in Utah pending appeal

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Tue Jan 07, 2014 11:34 am

howard wrote:Supreme Court halts same-sex marriages in Utah pending appeal

Yeah, that's a bummer. Now there are a whole lot of people who don't know if they will legally be treated as married. Can they file joint returns for their 2013 state income tax? If one of the spouses dies, does the other automatically inherit the spouse's share?

I didn't realize this when the case first hit, but the lawyers who are representing the plaintiffs are the same ones I did that big six-week trial against in 2012, when we got our JNOV at the end of the year. They just filed their brief in their appeal against us yesterday. We had to grant them multiple extensions because of all the emergency filings with the Tenth Circuit and Supreme Court.

I'm so torn. I want them to win. But they are such arrogant lying assholes that I don't want them to win.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Tue Jan 07, 2014 11:43 am

Steve of phpBB wrote:
howard wrote:Supreme Court halts same-sex marriages in Utah pending appeal
Yeah, that's a bummer. Now there are a whole lot of people who don't know if they will legally be treated as married. Can they file joint returns for their 2013 state income tax? If one of the spouses dies, does the other automatically inherit the spouse's share?

I didn't realize this when the case first hit, but the lawyers who are representing the plaintiffs are the same ones I did that big six-week trial against in 2012, when we got our JNOV at the end of the year. They just filed their brief in their appeal against us yesterday. We had to grant them multiple extensions because of all the emergency filings with the Tenth Circuit and Supreme Court.

I'm so torn. I want them to win. But they are such arrogant lying assholes that I don't want them to win.

Civil Rights before petty fights.

rass · Post by **rass** » Tue Jan 14, 2014 3:20 pm

In the Supreme Court, Utah refined its argument.

“The state does not contend that the individual parents in same-sex couples are somehow ‘inferior’ as parents to the individual parents who are involved in married, mother-father parenting,” the state said.

But, drawing on Supreme Court decisions endorsing the value of diversity in deciding who may attend public universities, the state now said it was pursuing “gender diversity” in marriages. “Society has long recognized that diversity in education brings a host of benefits to students,” the brief said. “If that is true in education, why not in parenting?”

NYT, h/t Sullivan

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 11:25 am

Supreme Court holds that a warrant is required to search a cell phone.

It's not a legal "search incident to arrest."

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/opini ... ellphones/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

howard · Post by **howard** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 5:42 pm

Now I think Roberts is just fucking with us. Getting our hopes up in advance of their NSA cases.

L-Jam3 · Post by **L-Jam3** » Thu Jun 26, 2014 8:07 am

Steve, I read the opinion, and I thought of it like this: Cops make an arrest of a suspect and while making a search incident to an arrest, they find a sealed envelope addressed to the suspect. Absent an exigent circumstance, like if there's a worry that there are Anthrax spores inside, the cops can't simply open the envelope absent a warrant. I think the Court collectively looked at this as a 21st Century version of "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...".

An interesting thing is that if the phone is on, they could simply watch as text messages come in and read them sans warrant, right?

Edited for verb agreement.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:31 am

L-Jam3 wrote:
An interesting thing is that if the phone is on, they could simply watch as text messages come in and read them sans warrant, right?

I didn't read the decision, but that would have to fall under the plain sight doctrine, no? I love 4th Amendment case law.

govmentchedda · Post by **govmentchedda** » Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:35 am

Bill of Rights, Shmill of Rights, there's a game on boys!

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:27 am

Another great day for our liberties yesterday. The Supreme Court overturned Massachusetts law creating a "bubble zone" around the entrances of abortion clinics. Finally, I am free in Massachusetts to get in a woman's face and scream obscenities at her while she is going through one of life's hardest moments. Live Free or Die, MFers!

Note, the Decision was limited enough so that the "bubble zone" preventing protesters from getting too close to the Supreme Court is still in tact. I have a few choice words for Justice Scalia.

And just because, I present a Beats by Dre commercial for you. Choice of music is fantastic.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Fri Jun 27, 2014 1:05 pm

The Sybian wrote:Another great day for our liberties yesterday. The Supreme Court overturned Massachusetts law creating a "bubble zone" around the entrances of abortion clinics. Finally, I am free in Massachusetts to get in a woman's face and scream obscenities at her while she is going through one of life's hardest moments. Live Free or Die, MFers!

Note, the Decision was limited enough so that the "bubble zone" preventing protesters from getting too close to the Supreme Court is still in tact. I have a few choice words for Justice Scalia.

Yeah, that one just sucks. Not an episode I am proud of, but 25 years ago, I knocked up a girl. She decided to get an abortion. I paid for it and accompanied her to the clinic. We had to run a small gauntlet of anti-abortion protestors. I threatened to knock the teeth out of a woman who approached us.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Fri Jun 27, 2014 1:23 pm

I hate that that was overturned. If they can force the Westboro Baptist Church to have a perimeter then why not a place like that? Unless they have some fixation about paparazzi being able to get up in celebrities' faces and figure it via that logic.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 1:26 pm

Thanks to the Hobby Lobby case, corporations are now able to claim religious beliefs to avoid complying with the law. WTF? I know "corporations are people," but religious beliefs? Yes, it was limited to closely held corps only, but still. How the fuck do we get to corps having religious beliefs? I can't wait for a Muslim owned company to force employees to fast during Ramadan. SHARIA LAW!?!?!?! OBAMA IS A TERRORIST. BENGHAZI!!!

Or this case: Court upholds Little Caesar's Right to Feed Christians to Lions.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 2:25 pm

The Sybian wrote:I can't wait for a Muslim owned company to force employees to fast during Ramadan.

I know you're kidding, but I kind of want to see this happen.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 2:36 pm

Johnnie wrote:
The Sybian wrote:I can't wait for a Muslim owned company to force employees to fast during Ramadan.
I know you're kidding, but I kind of want to see this happen.

I'm not joking. This has already happened with several state laws. In Tennessee, an Islamic Mosque took advantage of a pro-religion law to build a Mega-Mosque the town didn't want. The Christian Taliban Congressmen who passed the law were in utter shock, as they never envisioned religions other than Christianity taking advantage of the law. In Louisiana, an Islamic private school was able to use a newly passed law (I think to receive state funding, but not positive). Again, the people who wrote and praised the law never considered that non-Christian religions could benefit. Not sure if either was repealed, but there was an outcry to repeal so Muslims couldn't benefit. Notice when the Christian Fundamentalists cry about "Christian Persecution" it is because they aren't given special treatment over all other religions. If they called it "anti-religion," maybe they would be close to having a point. These wingnut Fundies lack the ability to view the world without their Christ-colored glasses. They have no concept that people of other faiths believe their religion is right the same way they believe Christianity is correct. They draft a law to benefit their religion without a thought that other religions exist. They are unable to envision the world from the point of view of someone who doesn't accept the Bible as true.

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 2:46 pm

The Constitution was awesome until that Terror-camp wanted to build near Ground Zero.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Mon Jul 28, 2014 8:56 pm

The Satanic Temple is using Hobby Lobby to help women avoid informed consent abortion laws. You know, where women have to listen to forced propaganda in order to change their mind and decide not to abort. They are even providing a form for women to show their doctors, stating that being forced to listen to the spiel violates their religious beliefs.

If it weren't for the name, I would be down with this group. (Link to their FAQ page)

howard · Post by **howard** » Mon Jul 28, 2014 11:04 pm

The Sybian wrote:If it weren't for the name, I would be down with this group.

What, you don't like anyone but Jews using the word 'temple'?