4 ms·

I'm not a lawyer, but to say that this "cannot be challenged in court" is a pretty terrible interpretation. The government asks the court system (where this is

I'm not a lawyer, but to say that this "cannot be challenged in court" is a pretty terrible interpretation. The government asks the court system (where this is, in fact, already being challenged) to deny an injunction stopping the metadata collection before this is fully heard in court.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> I'm not a lawyer, but to say that this "cannot be challenged in court" is a pretty terrible interpretation. The government asks the court system (where this is, in fact, already being challenged) to deny an injunction stopping the metadata collection before this is fully heard in court. They don't do that. They actually go beyond that to say that not only should the injunction be denied, but that the filing should be dismissed for failing to state a claim heir complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim "that plausibly suggest[s] an entitlement to relief." Which is, exactly, saying that the challenge they raise is not the kind which can be considered by a court.
- ethomson 13y ago
  Which is just fairly typical legal maneuvering in any case - the complaintant files an injunction, the defendant writes that the injunction should not proceed and that instead they file a motion to dismiss summarily. If we have a process story about every single motion filed in these cases, we're in for a long, tedious hall. Regardless, these motions will of course, be heard in court and the title remains awful.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    The title is a perfectly accurate representation of the government's argument, which is that the Court's authority on this matter is limited to recognizing that the substantive questions raised are not ones subject to adjudication and dismissing the entire matter on that baisis without reaching the substance of the claims. The fact that such arguments are within he range of common legal arguments does not make a title accurately reflecting them "awful".
    - ethomson 13y ago
      Can you cite that from the article? Because I don't see that anywhere. What I see is: > ... the alleged metadata program is fully consistent with the Fourth Amendment ... Because the Fourth Amendment is not breached, it follows that the First Amendment is not violated either Which asks for a summary dismissal. The referenced article never suggests that the court lacks authority, at least not that I can read. So I will continue to deem the title awful.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> I'm not a lawyer, but to say that this "cannot be challenged in court" is a pretty terrible interpretation. The government asks the court system (where this is, in fact, already being challenged) to deny an injunction stopping the metadata collection before this is fully heard in court. They don't do that. They actually go beyond that to say that not only should the injunction be denied, but that the filing should be dismissed for failing to state a claim heir complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim "that plausibly suggest[s] an entitlement to relief." Which is, exactly, saying that the challenge they raise is not the kind which can be considered by a court.

ethomson 13y ago
Which is just fairly typical legal maneuvering in any case - the complaintant files an injunction, the defendant writes that the injunction should not proceed and that instead they file a motion to dismiss summarily. If we have a process story about every single motion filed in these cases, we're in for a long, tedious hall. Regardless, these motions will of course, be heard in court and the title remains awful.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  The title is a perfectly accurate representation of the government's argument, which is that the Court's authority on this matter is limited to recognizing that the substantive questions raised are not ones subject to adjudication and dismissing the entire matter on that baisis without reaching the substance of the claims. The fact that such arguments are within he range of common legal arguments does not make a title accurately reflecting them "awful".
  - ethomson 13y ago
    Can you cite that from the article? Because I don't see that anywhere. What I see is: > ... the alleged metadata program is fully consistent with the Fourth Amendment ... Because the Fourth Amendment is not breached, it follows that the First Amendment is not violated either Which asks for a summary dismissal. The referenced article never suggests that the court lacks authority, at least not that I can read. So I will continue to deem the title awful.