3 ms·
Feels like this will get kicked on some standing shit. As with Clapper v. Amnesty International. How I expect this will go. ACLU: I want to sue because the go
by DubiousPusher 6y ago
Feels like this will get kicked on some standing shit. As with Clapper v. Amnesty International.
How I expect this will go.
ACLU: I want to sue because the government is surveiling my clients.
Supreme Court: How do you know they are doing this?
ACLU: We know they are doing it but not specifically how they do it to our clients that's what we're suing to find out.
Supreme Court: But without a specific complaint you don't have standing.
ACLU: The methods are secret so we don't have specifics.
Supreme Court: Come back when you do.
ACLU: But we can't find out without knowing more about how they are doing it which is what we are suing for.
Supreme Court: Yeah but you don't have standing.
ACLU: So 4th amendment rights are at stake but there is no constitutional remedy because of bureaucracy?
Supreme Court: shrugs
- roenxi 6y agoFundamentally, if the Supreme Court took that position I can see how it makes sense. It is unreasonable to sue someone to go on a fishing expedition to see what they might have done wrong. Realistically, the constitution lost most of its staying power a long time ago. The judiciary can't actually stop the rest of the government if it is united on launching a mass surveillance program - and the evidence suggests there is bipartisan support for it both between parties and between the executive and legislative branches.
- eganist 6y agoPretty much. If the ACLU wants any measure of success, encouraging whistleblowers might be the way to go.
- DubiousPusher 6y agoI totally disagree. The Supreme Court has it within their power to determine that Amnesty or the ACLU is likely enough representing an effected party and therefore grant them standing. There is some popular idea that everything the court does is abstract or must be categorical and that's simply not true. They make decisions all the time in which they draw a line through a gray area. They have been using the standing to avoid ruling on these 4th amendment issues because the issues are thorny and frankly because they believe, as they have made it clear in many other cases, that they believe in the national security state apparatus but aren't quite sure how to justify it. Edit: There are other possibilities too. If the court isn't comfortable imposing a remedy for 4th amendment violations they can mandate the legislature to do so and fine the administration until the legislature acts. This often happens in state governments.
- bassrattle 6y agoWhat about Wikileaks' "vault 7"?