2 ms·

> You cannot use a “fisa warrant” legally, they’re objectively unconstitutional. According to you. The courts think it's perfectly constitutional.

dwater 3y ago
Yes, in an alternate universe it would be gratifying to see a high court that wasn't captured by far right ideologues that was willing to take another look at precedent establishing decisions of the past that rolled back freedoms and privacy and say, "You know what, the facts that supported FISA, the Patriot Act, etc., were falsely manufactured for political reasons, and actually now that those falsehoods have come to light we think it's time to admit that those decisions were unsupported and should be reversed." But I expect the opposite for this universe.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  I disagree that they're captured and I support FISA. FISA should be expanded as far as I am concerned.
- int_19h 3y ago
  It's not a right/left thing, at least not in the colloquial sense those words are used in US. Laws like these have broad support on both sides of the political spectrum. The fundamental problem is authoritarianism, which is a disease infesting both left and right.
pdonis 3y ago
The courts claim lots of things are constitutional when any reasonable person can see that the claim is nonsense. To give just a few examples from Supreme Court cases: Seizing property to turn it over to a private developer instead of for public use is a valid use of the government's eminent domain power (Kelo v. New London). Congress regulating farmers growing wheat on their own property for their own and their animals' consumption on the grounds is a valid regulation of interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause (Wickard v. Filburn). Allowing Congress to delegate legislative power to the executive branch, in clear violation of Article I of the Constitution, as long as Congress gives an "intelligible principle" (Hampton Co. v. United States). Ruling that exercising your Fifth Amendment right not to be a witness against yourself can be taken as evidence of guilt (Salinas v. Texas).

dwater 3y ago

Yes, in an alternate universe it would be gratifying to see a high court that wasn't captured by far right ideologues that was willing to take another look at precedent establishing decisions of the past that rolled back freedoms and privacy and say, "You know what, the facts that supported FISA, the Patriot Act, etc., were falsely manufactured for political reasons, and actually now that those falsehoods have come to light we think it's time to admit that those decisions were unsupported and should be reversed." But I expect the opposite for this universe.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
I disagree that they're captured and I support FISA. FISA should be expanded as far as I am concerned.
int_19h 3y ago
It's not a right/left thing, at least not in the colloquial sense those words are used in US. Laws like these have broad support on both sides of the political spectrum. The fundamental problem is authoritarianism, which is a disease infesting both left and right.

pdonis 3y ago

The courts claim lots of things are constitutional when any reasonable person can see that the claim is nonsense. To give just a few examples from Supreme Court cases: Seizing property to turn it over to a private developer instead of for public use is a valid use of the government's eminent domain power (Kelo v. New London). Congress regulating farmers growing wheat on their own property for their own and their animals' consumption on the grounds is a valid regulation of interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause (Wickard v. Filburn). Allowing Congress to delegate legislative power to the executive branch, in clear violation of Article I of the Constitution, as long as Congress gives an "intelligible principle" (Hampton Co. v. United States). Ruling that exercising your Fifth Amendment right not to be a witness against yourself can be taken as evidence of guilt (Salinas v. Texas).