40 ms·

Look over the checks & balances in this case[1]. He was ruling that the collection was legal under the patriot act. However, the supreme court has the ability t

Look over the checks & balances in this case[1]. He was ruling that the collection was legal under the patriot act. However, the supreme court has the ability to apply "judicial review" to overturn a law / act / action. A quick perusal of wikipedia should help. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checks_and_balances#Checks_and_balances http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checks_and_balances#Checks_and_...

chris_mahan 13y ago
I think you've helped me identify the crux of the problem: "The Supreme Court" is not doing its job of protecting the Constitutional rights of persons in the US with the vigor necessary to counter (check) the Legislative and Executive branches.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> He was ruling that the collection was legal under the patriot act. No, he was ruling that it was Constitutional under the Fourth Amendment. There were also claims under statutory rules, but they were dismissed on procedural grounds (specifically, that they were subject to soveriegn immunity and the claims, regardless of the merits, did not fit within the scope of Congressional waivers of that immunity.) > However, the supreme court has the ability to apply "judicial review" to overturn a law / act / action. Judicial review is not a unique power of the Supreme Court -- every federal court reviews actions against the federal Constitution (which is, after all, the highest federal law) routinely, and exercises the power of judicial review. The Supreme Court's only special role with regard to judicial review is the same as its special role on every other issue -- its the last answer in the judicial system, as there is no higher court to appeal to.
jrochkind1 13y ago
> However, the supreme court has the ability to apply "judicial review" to overturn a law / act / action. So does any federal district court. The federal district court's decision (either way) can still be appealed to the supreme court though. In fact, this is pretty much the only way a case deciding constitutional law can get to the supreme court, first a federal district court has to decide if a law is constitutional or not, then it can be appealed to the supreme court. In this case, one federal district court has decided that NSA actions are constitutional; another has decided they are unconstitutional. (The exact same actions? I'm not entirely sure). It will be appealed to the supreme court, who will probably accept the case, and decide one way or the other. Seriously, you are mistaken about how the legal system works in the US.

chris_mahan 13y ago

I think you've helped me identify the crux of the problem: "The Supreme Court" is not doing its job of protecting the Constitutional rights of persons in the US with the vigor necessary to counter (check) the Legislative and Executive branches.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> He was ruling that the collection was legal under the patriot act. No, he was ruling that it was Constitutional under the Fourth Amendment. There were also claims under statutory rules, but they were dismissed on procedural grounds (specifically, that they were subject to soveriegn immunity and the claims, regardless of the merits, did not fit within the scope of Congressional waivers of that immunity.) > However, the supreme court has the ability to apply "judicial review" to overturn a law / act / action. Judicial review is not a unique power of the Supreme Court -- every federal court reviews actions against the federal Constitution (which is, after all, the highest federal law) routinely, and exercises the power of judicial review. The Supreme Court's only special role with regard to judicial review is the same as its special role on every other issue -- its the last answer in the judicial system, as there is no higher court to appeal to.

jrochkind1 13y ago

> However, the supreme court has the ability to apply "judicial review" to overturn a law / act / action. So does any federal district court. The federal district court's decision (either way) can still be appealed to the supreme court though. In fact, this is pretty much the only way a case deciding constitutional law can get to the supreme court, first a federal district court has to decide if a law is constitutional or not, then it can be appealed to the supreme court. In this case, one federal district court has decided that NSA actions are constitutional; another has decided they are unconstitutional. (The exact same actions? I'm not entirely sure). It will be appealed to the supreme court, who will probably accept the case, and decide one way or the other. Seriously, you are mistaken about how the legal system works in the US.