This judge is my hero

[ichy]

http://www.theatlantic.com/national...ion-for-antipathy-toward-the-military/261409/

The Atlantic's article was very hostile toward the judge in question, but I think it's awesome that someone finally had the guts to say this. I wish that someone would call out groups like Amnesty International a little more often.

At the risk of being obvious, the purpose of this lawsuit is litigation for its own sake -- for these lawyers to claim a role in policy-making for which they were not appointed or elected, for which they are not fitted by experience, and for which they are not accountable.

As best I can see, the only purpose of this litigation is for counsel and plaintiffs to act out their fantasy of persecution, to validate their pretensions to policy expertise, to make themselves consequential rather than marginal, and to raise funds for self-sustaining litigation. In short, Counsel's and Plaintiffs' only perceptible interest is to carve out for themselves an influence over government policy -- an interest that the law of standing forecloses.

 

[Mursilis]

Something is unclear here. The majority opinion describes the issue as:

Attorneys, journalists, and labor, legal, media, and human rights organizations brought this action facially challenging the constitutionality of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("FISA"), which was added to FISA by Section 101(a)(2) of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008... Section 702 creates new procedures for authorizing government electronic surveillance targeting non-United States persons outside the United States for purposes of collecting foreign intelligence.

but the article then says:

The plaintiffs complain that the procedures violate the Fourth Amendment, the First Amendment, Article III of the Constitution, and the principle of separation of powers because they "allow[] the executive branch sweeping and virtually unregulated authority to monitor the international communications . . . of law-abiding U.S. citizens and residents (some internal citations omitted).

Does the law in question concern spying on US citizens or within the US, or not?

 

[Farang]

This judge is an idiot. The lawyers are petitioning their government to challenge it's policy. It is true nobody appointed or elected them, the reason they have a right to do that is because even citizens who don't have the power or money to get themselves appointed or elected still have a right to file grievances with their government. And, when they do that, an appointed or elected judge will consider their request.

 

[cybrsage]

Something is unclear here. The majority opinion describes the issue as:


but the article then says:


Does the law in question concern spying on US citizens or within the US, or not?

Meh, it is a lib rant article that jumps all over the place...it is not really meant to be taken seriously or have anything of value in it.

 

[ichy]

Does the law in question concern spying on US citizens or within the US, or not?

The whole point of requiring people to have standing is so that groups like AI can't file endless lawsuits just to gum up the wheels of the legal system.

 

[Mursilis]

This judge is an idiot. The lawyers are petitioning their government to challenge it's policy. It is true nobody appointed or elected them, the reason they have a right to do that is because even citizens who don't have the power or money to get themselves appointed or elected still have a right to file grievances with their government. And, when they do that, an appointed or elected judge will consider their request.

That's mostly true, but some litigation is truly pointless, too. Of course, that's why we have the doctrine of standing.

 

[werepossum]

I certainly agree with what the judge said about the disconnect between the legal community and the military and its traceability to the Vietnam war, although I have not formed an opinion about the law itself and therefore I have no opinion about the lawsuit. He might well be right, but one can have a point in general and still be wrong in a particular case.

 

[hal2kilo]

The judge is a loon. Many lawyers went to law school while in the military and served as lawyers. His perceived prejudice is not found.

 

[ichy]

Only a tiny portion of lawyers have served in the military and the country's top law schools are quite hostile to military recruiters.