Download | Play 
Download | Play (h/t Heather)
On Tuesday’s Countdown, Keith Olbermann talks to Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley about the Supreme Court’s decision to not hear the ACLU vs. NSA case on warrantless wiretapping.
OLBERMANN: Why would evidence like this entire AT&T room in San Francisco—we know the number of the room, we know the guy who hooked it all up. Why is that not sufficient to at least move this lawsuit on?
TURLEY: Well, that’s part of the ridiculous element to all this. That we know there’s an NSA program; we know that it’s illegal. There’s been no showing nor is no showing possible that the President had the authority to order what he did. This is a crime, defined under federal law. So there’s no mystery to the program, there’s not a particular debate to its illegality. The only issue is standing: the ability of someone to come in and say, “I can show I was individually harmed.” And they can’t do that because the Courts won’t give them the information they need and Congress will do nothing to force out into the public the information needed to get this type of relief. And as you noted, the Congress is going further in the opposite direction; they’re trying to extinguish suits against telecom companies that have been successful.
This is why it is so critical that you contact your representative and let them know to NOT support telecom immunity. Anything less is enabling a crime against the country and its citizens. The Gavel has compiled some experts and editorials on the FISA law.
Filed Under: Countdown/Keith Olbermann, Jonathan Turley, NSA Wiretapping, Supreme Court
No Trackbacks To “Contempt by The Supreme Court“
our democracy is broken!
let’s fix it!
The next President will nominate up to 3 Supreme Court Justices that will affect a generation of
Americans. Scary to think the kind of Justice that a John McCain might nominate.
This is all so ridiculous! The Supreme Court is supposed to be there for the minority. Supposed to be there when the other two branches aren’t doing their job. There is no more checks and balances. We have a justice who condones torture, and yet will still rule on the cases. There needs to be a big change…and its not coming from any of the presidential candidates
Can the ACLU make the argument that the existence of such a program harms all American citizens, and thus they have standing as representatives of any citizen? I feel I’m harmed by this, as I sit here wondering who is looking over my shoulder while I type. Creating a surveilance society and it’s attendant culture of fear harms all of us collectively, even if nobody ever reads my email or listens to my conversation.
Or maybe they made that argument, and the SC didn’t want to hear it…
I hate to say this but IF none of the plaintiffs can show they were harmed, why should the court take this case?
Bear in mind I’m NOT arguing the govt should be spying on us. I think they should all be in jail for war crimes and crimes against humanity, but from a legal fair stand point, I have to think that you can’t go into court and say “I THINK they harmed me”
The court should not be trying to help individuals in the warrantless wiretapping civil case anyway. Since the govt admitted they did this, we should all be in criminal court. People v Govt
My Rep. is Vern Buchanan who only toes the party line.
Can’t blame the supremes for this one. Bush and the Repukes, with the help of too many Dems, have gamed the system.
Filthy Harry @ 5:
As an observer and thankfully not a US citizen, it seems to me that your country is getting closer and closer to a situation where only an armed revolution will result in meaningful change. I wish those of you who are fighting for your constitution and your freedom all the best.
Joementum @ 7:
But the Supreme Court helped to end segregation and gave women a right to choose when the President and the Congress didn’t. That is a huge part of the history of the Court, and this would have been another case of that sort of thing
People need to pay attention to the votes congress is making and replace them when needed.
Americans are too stupid and lazy to do even that.
Joementum @ 7:
They’re ALL to blame! Busholini appointed the most extreme right wingers the SCOTUS has ever seen and Congress kowtowed.
The Supreme Court is simply sending the message that Laws are for little people.
In the new order of things, the President owns the Law and the US Constitution and this isn’t bound by them.
Maybe Bush will issue a signing statement that nullifies Presidential elections? After all his Signing Statements demonstratively supersede the US Constitution.
The Supreme Court is there to uphold the Constitution and maintain the rule of law, not hide the illegal activities of an administration that acts more like a gang of criminals than a government of the people, for the people. I’ve heard several arguments for and against their hearing the case, but in the end, they should have and at least made an effort to uphold the laws this country was founded upon.
Sam @ 9:
That Supreme Court, believed in their Oath of Office.
go shopping everyone…
LOL, The Gavel. That rotten-to-the-core, spineless, pathetic excuse for House Leader has a blog. She makes me want to throw up. Talk about abdicating your duty. She should be hanging with the Republicans, at the end of a short rope in a tall tree. Let’s see what the next mother fucker who has her job says about impeachment then.
The light of freedom in America is dimming.
Everyone knows that the law is for the poor and middle-class. The rich and powerful are able to circumvent law most of the time. What does “rule of law” mean if it is so elastic and subject to partisan politics and corporate pressure that real crimes involving millions of dollars or millions of lives go unpunished? The impoverished drug addict will go to jail for twenty years for armed robbery and assault. Bush and his pals (including the telecom companies) will continue their greater crimes at almost no risk of punishment. Can’t we have a revolution yet?
Weaseldog @ 12:
Nailed it.
By the way…why is this story not on the front page of the NY Times. Other than KO, I really haven’t seen much about this
Solutions:
1. I remember that one telecom refused to provide information. I think everyone should switch to that service provider. AT&T losing 1 Million customers ought to make a point.
2. Insert ‘bomb’ and ‘al quaeda’ into every conversation you have on the phone. That will make their detectors work overtime.
Don’t blame the courts for this, blame our continually spineless Congress.
Civil cases involving government violations of Fourth Amendment rights typically deal with a person being investigated/prosecuted for evidence obtained illegally, i.e. without a warrant. Clearly there is harm to an individual in these cases, e.g. their time is taken up with it, they incur legal bills, their reputation sullied, etc. In a nutshell, that’s the legal precedent we’re dealing with.
Now, if an individual was actually harmed by this NSA data-mining, don’t you think they would know it and be able to show it?
If an individual was harmed, i.e. illegally investigated/prosecuted, then it is wrong if they are unable to pursue some legal remedy. On the other hand, these class-action lawsuits related to the NSA data-mining are nonsense.
The Supremes showed us all that they were a joke in 2000, and have been trying hard to maintain that image ever since!
Oh, I also have to give a shout out to the people who always say “Contact your representatives!” That one always cracks me up. Do you not understand that our elected representatives are the ones fucking us in the ass? In this country, if you want the government to do something, it takes a lot more than phone calls. And “it” is called money, huge piles of it.
peaceful easy feeling @ 23:
OK, maybe I am not being harmed in the sense of having my house destroyed, or getting physically injured, but these are Consitutional rights that are being taken away. So I am being harmed in a way that I am not as free as a citizen to say what I want to say, without the fear of what I am saying being collected in a database
Hope this Supreme Court refers to the Executive Branch when Barack Obama becomes President. The real test will be how SCOTUS performs after the Democrats take control in November and are sworn into office in January 2009. Will the next Democratically controlled Congress need to file impeachment against some of the Supremes? I’m sure the NSA spying records has something on Scalia and maybe a few others.
Hope Larry Flynn has some good information from the DC Madam’s address book to release this October.
peaceful easy feeling @ 23:
Can I go to your house when you’re away and look through all your stuff? I won’t make a mess, and I promise not to do anything with the information I find. You wouldn’t have a problem with that, right?
we could start by impeaching a Justice or two, and then remove the dems in Congress who enabled this by voting for those guys and for giving Bush everything he wanted.
canucknotusa is correct. And thanks for your support.
Canuknotusa @ 8:
If everyone’s civil liberties were honestly being taken away like you’d think they have by reading some on this blog, half of those here would be in Gitmo. Nicole and John would be sharing a cell for Christ’s sake….
Armed revolution…LOL…what a maroon……
Canuknotusa @ 8:
Hopefully, it will not come to that…but thanks for your support :)
Maybe this clusterfuck of epic proportions, can be solved through peaceful and diplomatic means…and by voting the regressivists out of office. If not…oh well. Revolution it is then.
Turley said Rove would be indicted.
And frankly I don’t blame the SC for punting. The SC knows the Democratic leadership is dragging their feet on holding Bush accountable for his crimes.
This would be legislating from the bench if the SC ruled against the Democratic Senators~
Jay Severin Has a Small Pen1s @ 21:
LOL!!! Well the first idea is likely to be more effective. And the second, however good it would feel may not be a good idea. What if the one terrorist stupid enough to actually use such language over the phone might slip through the net. ;)
Weaseldog @ 12:
And it was the little people who stormed the Bastille oh so long ago… these “rulers” will go down… it’s just a matter of time and how long the “little people” are willing to put up with rules for them and rules for the rich. As said so long ago… Hang the rich!
Remember when the Supreme Court actually adjudicated justice.
Ahh…the good old days.
KO should have asked Turley about a little thing called “Discovery”. The SC has been populated with shills. Time for some shovels, pitchforks, and torches.
Business as usual. Keith has to cover something.
The Monkey in the Oval Office will pardon the telecoms if congress removes immunity. It’s a no win/no win situation.
Olympics Menu. Breakfast of Champions.
http://tinyurl.com/284m8f
My reps are Republican. Is it even feasible to think they’d break party lines to follow the people’s wishes?
I mean, will I just be wasting my time by calling them?
AshWilliams @ 41:
Depends how safe their seats are. A lot of districts once thought to be untouchable by Dems are coming into play, and Repukes are rightfully worried.
AshWilliams @ 41:
It is quite obvious that yes it is a waste of time. Apparently according to the internet, these reps phones have been ringing off the hook. Has it done anything?
Yeah, I just wanted someone else to say it for me so I won’t feel guilty about not calling.
AshWilliams @ 44:
LOL……..well, when you think about it, they’ve had how long to do something about this? Regardless of party lines, it’s pretty obvious they know if they are breaking the laws or not, and don’t give a shit.
The only sure fire way (as history has shown) to implement any form of revolution
is the simplest of all forms. MASS DISOBEDIENCE.
If they try to haul you off or arrest you for simply doing nothing, it’s game on.
Swashbuckler @ 22:
This is the core of the problem. All of these things have a legal remedy, and they all involve congress doing their job. We’ve just let congress get too corrupt for too long.
Supreme court justices should be appointed every 10 years. The idea of having Judges like Roberts, Alito and Scalia controlling the laws in the country for the rest of my life just sickens me. If American justice isn’t dead, it’s at least on life support.