Supreme Court Upholds Terrorist Surveillance Program

[FAR52]

Well, kind of. As you all may recall, a federal judge in Detroit found the program to be illegal. The Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit reversed that decision, finding that none of the plaintiffs could prove that they had been harmed by the program and therefore lacked the legal standing to actually challenge the constitutionality of the program.

The Supreme Court, yesterday, declined to take up the case, which leaves the 6th Circuit case as the current law of the land -- at least for that circuit.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UTLREO0&show_article=1

[Moon Man]

Misleading thread title.

kah

[FAR52]

Misleading thread title.

kah

That was purposeful.

[Hepatitis Dispenser]

It is important to note that refusal to hear a case does not constitute agreement with the lower court's decision.

Also, of the 4 judges in the lower courts who have reviewed the program, Judge Diggs and the three judges of the Sixth Circuit, not one judge has said that the program was legal. Two of the four judges (Diggs and the dissenter in the 6th) say the program is clearly illegal and the other two say did not rule on the legality of the program but on the issue of standing

[Reggie Cleveland]

It is important to note that refusal to hear a case does not constitute agreement with the lower court's decision.

Also, of the 4 judges in the lower courts who have reviewed the program, Judge Diggs and the three judges of the Sixth Circuit, not one judge has said that the program was legal. Two of the four judges (Diggs and the dissenter in the 6th) say the program is clearly illegal and the other two say did not rule on the legality of the program but on the issue of standing

Keep us posted.

[FAR52]

It is important to note that refusal to hear a case does not constitute agreement with the lower court's decision.

Well, it does keep the precedential value of the lower court's decision intact.

[007]

Misleading thread title.

kah

You just can't let it go...