7 ms·
A.C.L.U. Files Suit Over Phone Surveillance Program
- gesman 13y agoScenario 1: NSA loses, People wins, Lawyers wins Scenario 2: NSA wins, People lose, Lawyers wins Now, who's the smartest?
- jpdoctor 13y agoI've never considered donating to the ACLU before this incident, but I've never considered them ambulance chasers either.
- jondtaylor 13y agoWhat do you mean by "ambulance chasers"?
- Taylorious 13y agoIt's a colloquial term for sleazy lawyer. Specifically, it's a lawyer who seeks out people who were injured, so that they can be that person's lawyer and sue whoever was responsible.
- jpdoctor 13y agoSorry, it might be an americanism: A lawyer working mostly for profit rather than principle. #3 definition is probably the closest to common usage: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ambulance%20chaser http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ambulance%20c...
- rayiner 13y agoCynicism ahead: periods of strife and conflict are among the best time to be a lawyer. The job isn't fun when everyone is happy and cooperative and agrees on everything.
- nostromo 13y agoI love to make anti-lawyer jokes as much as the next guy, but it's just not true for the ACLU, EFF, and other public interest organizations. ACLU lawyers make a fraction of what they could working for private law firms. According to this article from 2007, a job at the ACLU will get you $59k starting wage vs. $160k working for private law firms. Note that these folks have the same college loans to payback. I think we owe them our respect and gratitude. http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20070311/SUB/70311015 http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20070311/SUB/70311015
- nullc 13y ago> Note that these folks have the same college loans to payback This isn't always the case: http://www.studentaid.ed.gov/sites/default/files/public-service-loan-forgiveness.pdf http://www.studentaid.ed.gov/sites/default/files/public-serv... (At least employees of the ACLU foundation are eligible for loan forgiveness, and $59k is low enough that it would actually matter)
- flyinRyan 13y agoI don't really care what motivates them, so long as they fight for freedom and get the job done.
- baddox 13y agoThe court building janitors win too. I don't see your point.
- DannyBee 13y agoDoubtful. Most of the time you have to file N copies of a brief, where N > 10. (There is a lot of electronic case filing now, but ..) For example, for the supreme court, you need 40 copies. These poor bastards lose no matter what, because of how many times they have to empty the recycling bins.
- Domenic_S 13y agoXerox wins!
- ChrisAntaki 13y agoACLU & EFF, moving our society forward.
- h0w412d 13y agoThey both work tirelessly, mostly for people who don't even know they exist. Money donated to them is money well spent.
- BHSPitMonkey 13y agoOr in the ACLU's case, people with irrational hatred toward them.
- rayiner 13y agoFor people who think that lawsuits can't do anything: In the 1970's and 1980's, the courts were extremely active in policing the government. It was by all measures a much scarier time. Obama has a few drone strikes--Reagan was funding revolutions in other countries. It was the height of the cold war and the threat of nuclear holocaust, and the palpable fear about communism paled anything we see today over terrorism. Even in the early 2000's, in the throes of the aftermath of 9/11, the Supreme Court forced the Bush administration to dramatically adjust its policy on giving legal representation to inmates at Guantanamo. Since then what has happened is a process of delegitimization of the judiciary. And both sides of the aisle have been to blame for this: from the right's talk of activist judges to Obama's physically menacing over the Justices during his state of the union. The judiciary has been at fault too: having overextended itself in the culture wars of the 1960's and 1970's, it very self-conciously adopted a mantra of extreme judicial restraint. What you have left today is a judiciary that might no longer be able to effectively police the government. I've made it clear elsewhere that I don't think the current surveillance program is illegal, but it might not matter one way or the other. The judiciary's role in our system of checks and balances is ultimately rooted in faith in the legitimacy of the institution, and that faith has been dramatically eroded over the last two decades.
- bmelton 13y agoAnother, perhaps overlooked fact, is that the path to the Supreme Court often starts with a lowly lawsuit claiming damages. Without somebody filing an initial suit at the local level, the case won't ever have the opportunity for SCOTUS review.
- timberlane 13y agothat faith has been dramatically eroded over the last two decades... In hindsight Bush. vs. Gore did a lot to erode this faith, and the ruling was probably a mistake. Although, to it's credit, the court did not overturn Obamacare, probably because deciding such a partian battle would have further eroded this faith.
- rayiner 13y agoLiberals are mad about citizens united, but Roberts is doing yeoman's work. In hindsight, do you really want the government deciding what is political speech and what is impermissible electioneering? Or that the corporations targeted by the NSA have no speech rights? Then he threaded the needle with obamacare. Upholding it, but reiterating the narrower commerce power of Lopez.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]