3 ms·

I find it sad that the above comment was heavily downvoted given that he's is correct.

by rmah 5y ago

nickysielicki 5y ago
Hardly. > Trying to litigate a matter of national intelligence through the courts is the wrong approach to use. The government has nearly unlimited powers in matters of national security, which includes the collection of intelligence. The right approach for those who believe to have standing is to write to your congressman or senator, especially if they sit on the House or the Senate Intelligence committees. This isn't the way the government is supposed to work. We cannot count on the legislature to pass constitutional laws in all circumstances, that's why we have these landmark court cases that overturn bad laws. To say that the real solution is to just hope and pray that the legislature comes to their senses and reforms the laws themselves completely circumvents the role of our courts. If that was realistic, why do we have courts at all?
- riversflow 5y ago
  >This isn't the way the government is supposed to work. But clearly this is how the government currently works. If you don't want it to work that way, you'll need to change it. >To say that the real solution is to just hope and pray that the legislature comes to their senses No, the solution isn't hope and prayers, its activism, donations and getting others politically involved (especially about things that aren't the president).
  - nickysielicki 5y ago
    The courts are an independent body of government, the legislature has (and should always have) zero impact on the way that the courts make decisions. That's by design. This decision was rooted in common law. The onus is on the courts to reassert authority to review these cases, not on anyone else. There are no elections or legislation that will impact this.
    - pas 5y ago
      Clearly the elections end up influencing who sits on the bench.
      - nickysielicki 5y ago
        In this decision, there were three judges: > Judge Diaz [Obama] wrote the majority opinion, in which Judge Motz [Clinton] joined as to Parts I and II.A, and in which Judge Rushing [Trump] joined as to Part II.B.2 and C. > Judge Motz [Clinton] wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Judge Rushing [Trump] wrote an opinion concurring in part and in the judgment. https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201191.P.pdf https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201191.P.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Fourth_Circuit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals... Three judges from three administrations and both parties, all in agreement and disagreement. It's that way because they're a circuit court and they're applying law and precedent.
        Supermancho 5y ago
        > It's that way because they're a circuit court and they're applying law and precedent. There was dissent because it's not about applying law and precedent, but interpretation and choosing to apply or not. > that's why we have these landmark court cases that overturn bad laws. Because the court is subject to the population's prevailing opinion, in part. As public opinion shifts, so do courts (over longer cycles ofc). > The courts are an independent body of government, the legislature has (and should always have) zero impact on the way that the courts make decisions Wrong on all counts, around the world, throughout time. Pointing to concepts of "court impartiality" is like arguing about "pure democracy", discounting the human behavior when discussing the reality, is not compelling. Philosophers since (at least) Plato have tried to theorize a system for impartial philosopher kings, much less declare a profession to point to and say "that person is completely objective". https://midnightmediamusings.wordpress.com/2014/07/06/plato-the-republic-and-why-philosophers-should-rule/ https://midnightmediamusings.wordpress.com/2014/07/06/plato-...

I find it sad that the above comment was heavily downvoted given that he's is correct.

by rmah 5y ago

I find it sad that the above comment was heavily downvoted given that he's is correct.

Hardly. > Trying to litigate a matter of national intelligence through the courts is the wrong approach to use. The government has nearly unlimited powers in matters of national security, which includes the collection of intelligence. The right approach for those who believe to have standing is to write to your congressman or senator, especially if they sit on the House or the Senate Intelligence committees. This isn't the way the government is supposed to work. We cannot count on the legislature to pass constitutional laws in all circumstances, that's why we have these landmark court cases that overturn bad laws. To say that the real solution is to just hope and pray that the legislature comes to their senses and reforms the laws themselves completely circumvents the role of our courts. If that was realistic, why do we have courts at all?

riversflow 5y ago
>This isn't the way the government is supposed to work. But clearly this is how the government currently works. If you don't want it to work that way, you'll need to change it. >To say that the real solution is to just hope and pray that the legislature comes to their senses No, the solution isn't hope and prayers, its activism, donations and getting others politically involved (especially about things that aren't the president).
- nickysielicki 5y ago
  The courts are an independent body of government, the legislature has (and should always have) zero impact on the way that the courts make decisions. That's by design. This decision was rooted in common law. The onus is on the courts to reassert authority to review these cases, not on anyone else. There are no elections or legislation that will impact this.
  - pas 5y ago
    Clearly the elections end up influencing who sits on the bench.
    - nickysielicki 5y ago
      In this decision, there were three judges: > Judge Diaz [Obama] wrote the majority opinion, in which Judge Motz [Clinton] joined as to Parts I and II.A, and in which Judge Rushing [Trump] joined as to Part II.B.2 and C. > Judge Motz [Clinton] wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Judge Rushing [Trump] wrote an opinion concurring in part and in the judgment. https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201191.P.pdf https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201191.P.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Fourth_Circuit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals... Three judges from three administrations and both parties, all in agreement and disagreement. It's that way because they're a circuit court and they're applying law and precedent.
      - Supermancho 5y ago
        > It's that way because they're a circuit court and they're applying law and precedent. There was dissent because it's not about applying law and precedent, but interpretation and choosing to apply or not. > that's why we have these landmark court cases that overturn bad laws. Because the court is subject to the population's prevailing opinion, in part. As public opinion shifts, so do courts (over longer cycles ofc). > The courts are an independent body of government, the legislature has (and should always have) zero impact on the way that the courts make decisions Wrong on all counts, around the world, throughout time. Pointing to concepts of "court impartiality" is like arguing about "pure democracy", discounting the human behavior when discussing the reality, is not compelling. Philosophers since (at least) Plato have tried to theorize a system for impartial philosopher kings, much less declare a profession to point to and say "that person is completely objective". https://midnightmediamusings.wordpress.com/2014/07/06/plato-the-republic-and-why-philosophers-should-rule/ https://midnightmediamusings.wordpress.com/2014/07/06/plato-...