11 ms·

The Obama Administration Has Embraced Legal Theories Broader Than John Yoo's

146 points by hackuser 11y ago

awinter-py 11y ago
I was really hoping that barack would be the con-law president. If uchicago hasn't moved down in the rankings because their prof. emeritus is so bad at 'rule of law in practice', there's something wrong with the ranking system. It's shocking to hear a guy who was a professional legal theorist argue that something is legal based on the fact that he ordered the DOJ to write a memo.
- Agustus 11y ago
  I wish more university rankings would have the results of their students held against them. An exit test of abilities, logic, and knowledge would be a great ranking system. Additionally, when Presidents claim to be constitution law focused and fail in almost all of the concepts of following the constitution, the professors have failed and the department should be redacted down, similar to the division system in soccer.
  - wavefunction 11y ago
    Perhaps one should consider if a "constitutional scholar" is the perfect candidate to dismantle the Constitution bit by bit rather than someone who holds true to whatever your definitions of "Constitutional" are. I'll admit I voted for the guy the first time, but I was hoping for some significant differences in what we ended up with. Partially the fault of the obstructionist opposing party as well.
    - Agustus 11y ago
      When he was elected, I was happy, perhaps he could enact the changes that needed to be made to reign in some of the spying, ridiculous defense contracts, and other items. I based this on the "not red or blue country" speech at the DNC convention. That hope passed quickly when he made the "I won" comment to the Republicans instead of just assuaging or listening to their now valid concerns. I would argue that the obstructionism during the first two years should not be considered a factor based on the make-up of the Congress. The Democrat congress and President would have been able to hold the majority if they had not stirred up the hornet's nest of populism from the right through the healthcare act fiasco. Had he just focused on creating jobs, winding the war in Iraq and Afghanistan to a manageable level of involvement, and proselytized about family being important, we would not be having Trump running for office today.
      - actsasbuffoon 11y ago
        > the healthcare act fiasco The Affordable Care Act was based on RomneyCare, which in turn was based on model legeslation from ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Counsel). They're a conservative organization that writes bills and gives them to republicans to propose. The republican reaction was just showmanship; a cry of indignation for the sake of the cameras.
        bsbechtel 11y ago
        I can't speak for the OP, but he may not be talking about the actual law or it's basis, but the execution of it, which has been a fiasco. We're 3 years into it, and insurance agents and "qualified" healthcare navigators still don't know what they're doing because it's so complicated. Never mind the security issues and complete lack of usability that is the healthcare.gov marketplace.
        knodi123 11y ago
        > complete lack of usability that is the healthcare.gov marketplace Oh come now. This is ridiculous hyperbole, and even the underlying idea is pretty weak at this point. I used the marketplace last June and it presented information clearly and effectively, and I had no problems going from zero to well-informed and insured in no time at all. The launch may have been a fiasco, but it's a pretty good site today.
        bsbechtel 11y ago
        If you have any sort of edge case when it comes to getting insurance, it's still has issues.
        CWuestefeld 11y ago
        This probably is way way off-topic, but.... While on the face you seem to be decrying the polar tribalism that characterizes contemporary politics, you are using that very tribalism to make your argument. But the fact that some folks who label themselves "conservative" have advocated something does not obligate all people, or even any other people, who also label themselves "conservative", to also support it. Or will you criticize other Republicans for failing to get on board with Trump's nonsense?
    - mercurialshark 11y ago
      He was not a constitutional lawyer. It's amazing that line ever got traction. Teaching con-law is like teaching biology in med school. It's a required course. Being a scholar requires scholarship and you'll be hard pressed to find Obama's con law scholarship/publications.
    - rhizome 11y ago
      At the end of the day, John Yoo has probably studied the Constitution more than Obama, as well as other nameless ones throughout government. For every one of you and me, there are entire graduating classes every year chock full of ideological pushback.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - dinkumthinkum 11y ago
    They already take the LSAT to get in, what more logic test stats do you want - Edit - it's a legitimate question, moreso than hand-waving about "post graduation logic tests".
    - Naritai 11y ago
      Pretty sure OP is referring to logical application of legal concepts, not brain-teasers.
  - mikeyouse 11y ago
    Small correction, you're not redacted down in soccer but relegated down.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- bitwize 11y ago
  Obama's reign was never about hope and change; it was always about der Wille zur Macht. Riddle me this -- what if Obama became a Constitutional law professor not so much to study, understand, and teach about the Constitution and its checks on government power, but to give scholarly support to a loose interpretation of the Constitution which does not meaningfully restrain government power?
  - lbaskin 11y ago
    As far as I see, he only really taught some fluff courses on "rights, race and gender." [1] Not quite what comes to the minds of most lawyers and law students when someone says "con law professor." [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html?pag...
    - vilhelm_s 11y ago
      The article says, "At the school, Mr. Obama taught three courses, ascending to senior lecturer, a title otherwise carried only by a few federal judges. His most traditional course was in the due process and equal protection areas of constitutional law. His voting rights class traced the evolution of election law, from the disenfranchisement of blacks to contemporary debates over districting and campaign finance. Mr. Obama was so interested in the subject that he helped Richard Pildes, a professor at New York University, develop a leading casebook in the field. His most original course, a historical and political seminar as much as a legal one, was on racism and law." From that description, the equal protection and due process course sounds like a typical con law profesor?
    - johnloeber 11y ago
      Obama was offered tenure multiple times. Each time, he turned it down. You don't get a tenure offer at UChicago Law by teaching fluff courses. He apparently focused on the intersection of race and constitutional law.
  - awinter-py 11y ago
    Also reasonable: law professor is a great job if you can get it. Plus when you run out of money you click your slippers and say 'no place like corp law'. Also possible that he's a lizard person. Not much textual evidence for this case but if you like 45 minute youtube videos I'll recommend some good ones.
- Shivetya 11y ago
  One needs to always remember that those not yet in power have issues with how others use it, once their side is in power they are quite happy with maintaining the status quo or expanding it.
  - PhantomGremlin 11y ago
    The great 1960's scholar Peter Dennis Blandford Townshend explained it thusly: Meet the new boss Same as the old boss
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- randomgyatwork 11y ago
  I don't think his actions have much to do with what he believes, despite his intentions the government must function as it functions. I think that Obama sincerely wanted to change things, but once he got the power he realized it wasn't possible, or he is a very convincing liar, so convincing that he believes himself what he said.
  - hartator 11y ago
    Or he can be just bad at leading changes.
    - dmix 11y ago
      Or the US has a weak political system compared to multi-party systems in better functioning democracies, such as Canada.
      - pc86 11y ago
        The political system was designed from the beginning to be weak based on what the founders had left. A very specific set of powers granted to the federal government but split between three often opposed branches. The remaining power defaulting to the states but still separated by largely the same system of checks of balances, and often with the two systems (state/fed) themselves opposed. The system was never designed to be one where you could implement massive changes overnight.
  - setpatchaddress 11y ago
    His political appointee runs the DOJ. He can't close Guantanamo unilaterally, but he could have done a lot better on civil liberties.
  - Crito 11y ago
    Controversial politicians, by their very nature, are not convincing liars. If you want to find examples of convincing liars, you need to look among the people who are universally loved.
- dnsjkwns 11y ago
  That's ... putting it mildly, Obama is a war criminal who condones torture. In a just state that followed the rule of law him, and many others in power, would be in jail. It'll probably require a violent revolution or internal collapse before the endemic corruption in America is addressed.
- rayiner 11y ago
  It's not clear to me that narrow interpretations of the 4th amendment are more faithful to the Constitution than broad ones. It's true that the 4th amendment was put in the Constitution to provide a protection against warrantless searches of peoples' homes. At the same time, one of the motivating reasons for creating the Constitution as a whole was to create a powerful executive with broad authority to react to military threats, both external and internal. Why is it more faithful to the Constitution to give more weight to the 4th amendment and less weight to the President's broad powers as to national security? The very first Congress provided for warrantless searches of goods entering and leaving the ports of the United States. Why does it offend the Constitution to interpret the border as being the line where the domestic concerns of the 4th amendment give way to the foreign powers concerns of Article II?
  - gizmo686 11y ago
    It is also worth remembering that home searches were (and are) very annoying. The type of digital surveillance that is the topic of current 4th amendment debates do not directly inconvenience the person being investigated, so this argument does not apply.
    - dnautics 11y ago
      I think part of what made home searches annoying in the colonial era was that they were disproportionately applied to the political opponents of the colonialist status quo. We see those concerns reappear in the modern day in the form of, e.g. loveint, and presumably other pernicious politically motivated investigations. The federal code is so broad as to be able to be used to harass anyone for a legion of infractions at any given moment, so it is a reasonable threat.
      - awinter-py 11y ago
        never heard of LOVEINT before! awesome
    - soganess 11y ago
      Inconvenience is hardly the reason for the 4th was put in place, saying that we can moot the whole thing because technology has solved that inconvenient bit seems really disingenuous. The 4th doesn't say "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause... except in cases of extreme convenience, then we can just play it by ear." It is a clear as daylight protection of against governmental abuse. And honestly I don't know about you, but I rather have my house searched then my computers any day of the week. One's a place I sleep, the other has deep insights on me as an individual.
- dnsjjebw 11y ago
  Obama is a war criminal who condones torture. In a just country he would be in jail. Endemic corruption will continue in America until those in power suffer consequences. Also, my comment will probably be banned by the pro state mods.
  - wonderlust 11y ago
    Or by people who recognize trolls and no value comments.
    - awinter-py 11y ago
      That's no ordinary troll. Those comments were synthesized from either a stats distribution or a human using a script. The usernames are similar (dnsjjebw & dnsjkwns), both first time posters, and there's keyword matches between the posts. I think someone's running a chatbot experiment.
      - trill1 11y ago
        The language doesn't look reminiscent of a chatbot to me. It seems that the person made a one-off account, posted something, then thought it didn't go through and made another account and posted again. Also, Obama is a war criminal, just like W.
- exabrial 11y ago
  I'm scared of his supreme court pick for this exact reason. The executive branch is not granted that kind of power.
tootie 11y ago
Eh. John Yoo advocated unlimited warrantless surveillance of even domestic communication and he said torture was A-OK. As much as I don't like what Obama is allowing here, I don't see how it's worse or even as bad as what Yoo pushed for.
matt_wulfeck 11y ago
How it should be: - "Let's challenge these theories in the courts" - "the courts have decided that the application of the law is too broad and we're going to add clearly defined limits so as to protect the rights of our citizens" How it is: - "the courts can not review or speak about what may or may not be a problem because of FISA orders."
- bpodgursky 11y ago
  FISA orders are completely unrelated to this. These cases take a long time to trickle up to the Supreme Court. And you would have to either convince one of the 4 solid left-wing judges to side against the administration (hah -- and before downvoting, look at the voting records) or have a unanimous opinion on the right, which was difficult even when Scalia was alive, and obviously not helpful now, since a split enforcing a lower court decision doesn't set precedent.
- spathi_fwiffo 11y ago
  How it is: - Since our legal advisor claims that it is possibly legal, I will do the thing. In the case that someone has grounds to challenge the thing, I will face no penalty because I acted in good faith based on legal advice. If a normal citizen tried that shit, they'd be rotting in jail.
  - bediger4000 11y ago
    I've been wondering about the "good faith" assumption that law enforcement, and some other government employees get. Is that just a by product of the courts and law enforcement basically being two heads of the same beast or is there something else at work?
lasermike026 11y ago
How do I short the US government?
- marblar 11y ago
  Treasury bonds?
  - PhantomGremlin 11y ago
    Good one! As I'm sure you know, good fucking luck shorting Treasuries. They've been in a 35 year long bull market. As Keynes noted oh so long ago, "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent."
- etherael 11y ago
  If you still believe in the core concept of a state, but just believe the US is a particularly bad one, invest in other governments with opposing, or non-aligned geopolitical / economic interests. Iran, Russia, Brazil, India, China (and/or corporate entities therein) are good places to start. If you believe the entire model is intrinsically flawed and doomed to eventual failure, cryptocurrencies if you're technologically optimistic, or precious metals if you're not.
xnull2guest 11y ago
Somehow people are just catching on to this. I was amazed and deeply disappointed by the appointment of Cass Sunstein. He wrote a freaking book entitled "The Problem of Free Speech" and actively justifies state infiltration and 'providing direction' to online political discourse among the US citizen base (among other things). Though its not this administration either. The Bust Administration before it drew up many broad interpretations of law, including the laws that have since been used for censorship (first in "Free Speech Zones" but since at Occupy and the media free zones around Ferguson).
tempodox 11y ago
The textbook example of how bad cases (or pretexts?) make bad law.
OliverJones 11y ago
In the article, Mr. Toomey wrote this: "The government assumes that any communication entering or leaving the country has a foreigner on one end — and thus is eligible for warrantless searching. As the new Brennan Center report makes clear, the implications of this position are especially dire given the global structure of the Internet, where even Americans’ domestic communications may be routed or stored abroad without the parties to those communications even knowing. " He's correct. This position is dire. It also works in reverse. Any communication between two non-US residents that happens to transit the US is also subject to surveillance. Given the way global packet networks function, that means that almost any communication could be subject to surveillance under this legal theory. As US networking companies' foreign customers have understood, that's an unacceptable -- and sometimes illegal -- risk. These policies haven't been good for US network business. And, pretty soon the NSA could have T. Cruz or D. Trump at the head of the government they control. Is there some reason the US security apparatus can't legislate in public? Is there some reason they can't make the case "here's why we are trustworthy"? They haven't even TRIED to make that case.
- extra88 11y ago
  > Any communication between two non-US residents that happens to transit the US is also subject to surveillance. Of course but we (USians) don't care, spying on everyone else is the NSA's job and every country does it. I'm more concerned about these issues than the average USian but even I don't care much about applying things like the 4th Amendment to non-USians who are physically outside the country. Well, I don't care about it from a justice perspective, I do care about possible consequences like the Internet becoming balkanized. > Is there some reason the US security apparatus can't legislate in public? Why would they, how would it benefit them? Their answer would be that it's critical that they keep secret their "sources and methods," so the bad guys don't know what they're doing and also what they're not doing, whether it's because they don't have the capability or they're legally restricted from doing it.

146 points by hackuser 11y ago

I was really hoping that barack would be the con-law president. If uchicago hasn't moved down in the rankings because their prof. emeritus is so bad at 'rule of law in practice', there's something wrong with the ranking system. It's shocking to hear a guy who was a professional legal theorist argue that something is legal based on the fact that he ordered the DOJ to write a memo.

Agustus 11y ago
I wish more university rankings would have the results of their students held against them. An exit test of abilities, logic, and knowledge would be a great ranking system. Additionally, when Presidents claim to be constitution law focused and fail in almost all of the concepts of following the constitution, the professors have failed and the department should be redacted down, similar to the division system in soccer.
- wavefunction 11y ago
  Perhaps one should consider if a "constitutional scholar" is the perfect candidate to dismantle the Constitution bit by bit rather than someone who holds true to whatever your definitions of "Constitutional" are. I'll admit I voted for the guy the first time, but I was hoping for some significant differences in what we ended up with. Partially the fault of the obstructionist opposing party as well.
  - Agustus 11y ago
    When he was elected, I was happy, perhaps he could enact the changes that needed to be made to reign in some of the spying, ridiculous defense contracts, and other items. I based this on the "not red or blue country" speech at the DNC convention. That hope passed quickly when he made the "I won" comment to the Republicans instead of just assuaging or listening to their now valid concerns. I would argue that the obstructionism during the first two years should not be considered a factor based on the make-up of the Congress. The Democrat congress and President would have been able to hold the majority if they had not stirred up the hornet's nest of populism from the right through the healthcare act fiasco. Had he just focused on creating jobs, winding the war in Iraq and Afghanistan to a manageable level of involvement, and proselytized about family being important, we would not be having Trump running for office today.
    - actsasbuffoon 11y ago
      > the healthcare act fiasco The Affordable Care Act was based on RomneyCare, which in turn was based on model legeslation from ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Counsel). They're a conservative organization that writes bills and gives them to republicans to propose. The republican reaction was just showmanship; a cry of indignation for the sake of the cameras.
      - bsbechtel 11y ago
        I can't speak for the OP, but he may not be talking about the actual law or it's basis, but the execution of it, which has been a fiasco. We're 3 years into it, and insurance agents and "qualified" healthcare navigators still don't know what they're doing because it's so complicated. Never mind the security issues and complete lack of usability that is the healthcare.gov marketplace.
        knodi123 11y ago
        > complete lack of usability that is the healthcare.gov marketplace Oh come now. This is ridiculous hyperbole, and even the underlying idea is pretty weak at this point. I used the marketplace last June and it presented information clearly and effectively, and I had no problems going from zero to well-informed and insured in no time at all. The launch may have been a fiasco, but it's a pretty good site today.
        bsbechtel 11y ago
        If you have any sort of edge case when it comes to getting insurance, it's still has issues.
      - CWuestefeld 11y ago
        This probably is way way off-topic, but.... While on the face you seem to be decrying the polar tribalism that characterizes contemporary politics, you are using that very tribalism to make your argument. But the fact that some folks who label themselves "conservative" have advocated something does not obligate all people, or even any other people, who also label themselves "conservative", to also support it. Or will you criticize other Republicans for failing to get on board with Trump's nonsense?
  - mercurialshark 11y ago
    He was not a constitutional lawyer. It's amazing that line ever got traction. Teaching con-law is like teaching biology in med school. It's a required course. Being a scholar requires scholarship and you'll be hard pressed to find Obama's con law scholarship/publications.
  - rhizome 11y ago
    At the end of the day, John Yoo has probably studied the Constitution more than Obama, as well as other nameless ones throughout government. For every one of you and me, there are entire graduating classes every year chock full of ideological pushback.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- dinkumthinkum 11y ago
  They already take the LSAT to get in, what more logic test stats do you want - Edit - it's a legitimate question, moreso than hand-waving about "post graduation logic tests".
  - Naritai 11y ago
    Pretty sure OP is referring to logical application of legal concepts, not brain-teasers.
- mikeyouse 11y ago
  Small correction, you're not redacted down in soccer but relegated down.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
bitwize 11y ago
Obama's reign was never about hope and change; it was always about der Wille zur Macht. Riddle me this -- what if Obama became a Constitutional law professor not so much to study, understand, and teach about the Constitution and its checks on government power, but to give scholarly support to a loose interpretation of the Constitution which does not meaningfully restrain government power?
- lbaskin 11y ago
  As far as I see, he only really taught some fluff courses on "rights, race and gender." [1] Not quite what comes to the minds of most lawyers and law students when someone says "con law professor." [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html?pag...
  - vilhelm_s 11y ago
    The article says, "At the school, Mr. Obama taught three courses, ascending to senior lecturer, a title otherwise carried only by a few federal judges. His most traditional course was in the due process and equal protection areas of constitutional law. His voting rights class traced the evolution of election law, from the disenfranchisement of blacks to contemporary debates over districting and campaign finance. Mr. Obama was so interested in the subject that he helped Richard Pildes, a professor at New York University, develop a leading casebook in the field. His most original course, a historical and political seminar as much as a legal one, was on racism and law." From that description, the equal protection and due process course sounds like a typical con law profesor?
  - johnloeber 11y ago
    Obama was offered tenure multiple times. Each time, he turned it down. You don't get a tenure offer at UChicago Law by teaching fluff courses. He apparently focused on the intersection of race and constitutional law.
- awinter-py 11y ago
  Also reasonable: law professor is a great job if you can get it. Plus when you run out of money you click your slippers and say 'no place like corp law'. Also possible that he's a lizard person. Not much textual evidence for this case but if you like 45 minute youtube videos I'll recommend some good ones.
Shivetya 11y ago
One needs to always remember that those not yet in power have issues with how others use it, once their side is in power they are quite happy with maintaining the status quo or expanding it.
- PhantomGremlin 11y ago
  The great 1960's scholar Peter Dennis Blandford Townshend explained it thusly: Meet the new boss Same as the old boss
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
randomgyatwork 11y ago
I don't think his actions have much to do with what he believes, despite his intentions the government must function as it functions. I think that Obama sincerely wanted to change things, but once he got the power he realized it wasn't possible, or he is a very convincing liar, so convincing that he believes himself what he said.
- hartator 11y ago
  Or he can be just bad at leading changes.
  - dmix 11y ago
    Or the US has a weak political system compared to multi-party systems in better functioning democracies, such as Canada.
    - pc86 11y ago
      The political system was designed from the beginning to be weak based on what the founders had left. A very specific set of powers granted to the federal government but split between three often opposed branches. The remaining power defaulting to the states but still separated by largely the same system of checks of balances, and often with the two systems (state/fed) themselves opposed. The system was never designed to be one where you could implement massive changes overnight.
- setpatchaddress 11y ago
  His political appointee runs the DOJ. He can't close Guantanamo unilaterally, but he could have done a lot better on civil liberties.
- Crito 11y ago
  Controversial politicians, by their very nature, are not convincing liars. If you want to find examples of convincing liars, you need to look among the people who are universally loved.
dnsjkwns 11y ago
That's ... putting it mildly, Obama is a war criminal who condones torture. In a just state that followed the rule of law him, and many others in power, would be in jail. It'll probably require a violent revolution or internal collapse before the endemic corruption in America is addressed.
rayiner 11y ago
It's not clear to me that narrow interpretations of the 4th amendment are more faithful to the Constitution than broad ones. It's true that the 4th amendment was put in the Constitution to provide a protection against warrantless searches of peoples' homes. At the same time, one of the motivating reasons for creating the Constitution as a whole was to create a powerful executive with broad authority to react to military threats, both external and internal. Why is it more faithful to the Constitution to give more weight to the 4th amendment and less weight to the President's broad powers as to national security? The very first Congress provided for warrantless searches of goods entering and leaving the ports of the United States. Why does it offend the Constitution to interpret the border as being the line where the domestic concerns of the 4th amendment give way to the foreign powers concerns of Article II?
- gizmo686 11y ago
  It is also worth remembering that home searches were (and are) very annoying. The type of digital surveillance that is the topic of current 4th amendment debates do not directly inconvenience the person being investigated, so this argument does not apply.
  - dnautics 11y ago
    I think part of what made home searches annoying in the colonial era was that they were disproportionately applied to the political opponents of the colonialist status quo. We see those concerns reappear in the modern day in the form of, e.g. loveint, and presumably other pernicious politically motivated investigations. The federal code is so broad as to be able to be used to harass anyone for a legion of infractions at any given moment, so it is a reasonable threat.
    - awinter-py 11y ago
      never heard of LOVEINT before! awesome
  - soganess 11y ago
    Inconvenience is hardly the reason for the 4th was put in place, saying that we can moot the whole thing because technology has solved that inconvenient bit seems really disingenuous. The 4th doesn't say "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause... except in cases of extreme convenience, then we can just play it by ear." It is a clear as daylight protection of against governmental abuse. And honestly I don't know about you, but I rather have my house searched then my computers any day of the week. One's a place I sleep, the other has deep insights on me as an individual.
dnsjjebw 11y ago
Obama is a war criminal who condones torture. In a just country he would be in jail. Endemic corruption will continue in America until those in power suffer consequences. Also, my comment will probably be banned by the pro state mods.
- wonderlust 11y ago
  Or by people who recognize trolls and no value comments.
  - awinter-py 11y ago
    That's no ordinary troll. Those comments were synthesized from either a stats distribution or a human using a script. The usernames are similar (dnsjjebw & dnsjkwns), both first time posters, and there's keyword matches between the posts. I think someone's running a chatbot experiment.
    - trill1 11y ago
      The language doesn't look reminiscent of a chatbot to me. It seems that the person made a one-off account, posted something, then thought it didn't go through and made another account and posted again. Also, Obama is a war criminal, just like W.
exabrial 11y ago
I'm scared of his supreme court pick for this exact reason. The executive branch is not granted that kind of power.

tootie 11y ago

Eh. John Yoo advocated unlimited warrantless surveillance of even domestic communication and he said torture was A-OK. As much as I don't like what Obama is allowing here, I don't see how it's worse or even as bad as what Yoo pushed for.

matt_wulfeck 11y ago

How it should be: - "Let's challenge these theories in the courts" - "the courts have decided that the application of the law is too broad and we're going to add clearly defined limits so as to protect the rights of our citizens" How it is: - "the courts can not review or speak about what may or may not be a problem because of FISA orders."

bpodgursky 11y ago
FISA orders are completely unrelated to this. These cases take a long time to trickle up to the Supreme Court. And you would have to either convince one of the 4 solid left-wing judges to side against the administration (hah -- and before downvoting, look at the voting records) or have a unanimous opinion on the right, which was difficult even when Scalia was alive, and obviously not helpful now, since a split enforcing a lower court decision doesn't set precedent.
spathi_fwiffo 11y ago
How it is: - Since our legal advisor claims that it is possibly legal, I will do the thing. In the case that someone has grounds to challenge the thing, I will face no penalty because I acted in good faith based on legal advice. If a normal citizen tried that shit, they'd be rotting in jail.
- bediger4000 11y ago
  I've been wondering about the "good faith" assumption that law enforcement, and some other government employees get. Is that just a by product of the courts and law enforcement basically being two heads of the same beast or is there something else at work?

lasermike026 11y ago

How do I short the US government?

marblar 11y ago
Treasury bonds?
- PhantomGremlin 11y ago
  Good one! As I'm sure you know, good fucking luck shorting Treasuries. They've been in a 35 year long bull market. As Keynes noted oh so long ago, "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent."
etherael 11y ago
If you still believe in the core concept of a state, but just believe the US is a particularly bad one, invest in other governments with opposing, or non-aligned geopolitical / economic interests. Iran, Russia, Brazil, India, China (and/or corporate entities therein) are good places to start. If you believe the entire model is intrinsically flawed and doomed to eventual failure, cryptocurrencies if you're technologically optimistic, or precious metals if you're not.

xnull2guest 11y ago

Somehow people are just catching on to this. I was amazed and deeply disappointed by the appointment of Cass Sunstein. He wrote a freaking book entitled "The Problem of Free Speech" and actively justifies state infiltration and 'providing direction' to online political discourse among the US citizen base (among other things). Though its not this administration either. The Bust Administration before it drew up many broad interpretations of law, including the laws that have since been used for censorship (first in "Free Speech Zones" but since at Occupy and the media free zones around Ferguson).

tempodox 11y ago

The textbook example of how bad cases (or pretexts?) make bad law.

OliverJones 11y ago

In the article, Mr. Toomey wrote this: "The government assumes that any communication entering or leaving the country has a foreigner on one end — and thus is eligible for warrantless searching. As the new Brennan Center report makes clear, the implications of this position are especially dire given the global structure of the Internet, where even Americans’ domestic communications may be routed or stored abroad without the parties to those communications even knowing. " He's correct. This position is dire. It also works in reverse. Any communication between two non-US residents that happens to transit the US is also subject to surveillance. Given the way global packet networks function, that means that almost any communication could be subject to surveillance under this legal theory. As US networking companies' foreign customers have understood, that's an unacceptable -- and sometimes illegal -- risk. These policies haven't been good for US network business. And, pretty soon the NSA could have T. Cruz or D. Trump at the head of the government they control. Is there some reason the US security apparatus can't legislate in public? Is there some reason they can't make the case "here's why we are trustworthy"? They haven't even TRIED to make that case.

extra88 11y ago
> Any communication between two non-US residents that happens to transit the US is also subject to surveillance. Of course but we (USians) don't care, spying on everyone else is the NSA's job and every country does it. I'm more concerned about these issues than the average USian but even I don't care much about applying things like the 4th Amendment to non-USians who are physically outside the country. Well, I don't care about it from a justice perspective, I do care about possible consequences like the Internet becoming balkanized. > Is there some reason the US security apparatus can't legislate in public? Why would they, how would it benefit them? Their answer would be that it's critical that they keep secret their "sources and methods," so the bad guys don't know what they're doing and also what they're not doing, whether it's because they don't have the capability or they're legally restricted from doing it.