Fox News---Justice Dept appeals Judges decision on wiretaps

You had to see that coming......Bush's Justice Dept appealing....lmao!
Any bets that the Supreme Court rules the same when the issue comes to the highest court.......alot of backscratching going on in Washington!

[edit on 8/17/2006 by GregR1965]

Yup, I knew this was comming. They just won't let it rest. They will have their wiretaps without warrants, and damn what any judge or law has to say on the matter. Im quite sure the supreme court will do what its paid to do.......

Incredible and still people swear that everything is just fine and that our rights are protected.

There goes another one for you people.

I guess the next big jump will be the ACLU or the Group/Association of Lawyers in America (I forget the name), will be appealing until it reaches the Supreme Court?

I can’t believe some of you guys in here, there are way too many Federal judges out there and they all have different opinion and interpretations of this law. It was a hit or miss case, this judge (the one that got the case) just so happens to think that it’s unconstitutional. But I bet you there are other federal judges out there, who disagree with her, does that mean they are wrong and she is right just because by chance she was the one that got to rule on the case? That is why we have a supreme court, 9 individuals instead of one; they decide once and for all what it should be. But yet you take the views of a single federal district judge as gospel because you agree with them but if the Supreme Court of the United States rules otherwise they are "paid".? :shk:

And its well within the rights of the DOJ to appeal and take the case further.

Originally posted by marg6040
Incredible and still people swear that everything is just fine and that our rights are protected.

There goes another one for you people.

What are you talking about? The DOJ can’t appeal?

[edit on 17-8-2006 by WestPoint23]

Wait, I am confused here, don't most people here on ATS scream and yell that their rights to privacy are violated because the government is always monitoring? Wouldn't this, if it goes all the way to the end, actually restrict what the government can do?

Please clarify, someone.

They don’t want it to go all the way to the end because right now in the SCOTUS barring any abstention its 4/4 with Kennedy probably being the swing vote. A decision from one Federal judge is easy to win but arguing in front of the Supreme Court is another business altogether.

[edit on 17-8-2006 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by Mouth
Wait, I am confused here, don't most people here on ATS scream and yell that their rights to privacy are violated because the government is always monitoring? Wouldn't this, if it goes all the way to the end, actually restrict what the government can do?

Please clarify, someone.

The issue here is whether or not the government can use wiretaps without a warrant on you. If it went to the end, and the Supreme Court upheld the law, then it means that the feds can do warrantless wiretaps.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
They don’t want it to go all the way to the end because right now in the SCOTUS barring any abstention its 4/4 with Kennedy probably being the swing vote. A decision from one Federal judge is easy to win but arguing in front of the Supreme Court is another business altogether.
[edit on 17-8-2006 by WestPoint23]

Please don't create a blanket statement here. I'm always happy when the government works in the way it is supposed to. The judicial system and moving up the ladder to the top is the way it needs to go. I applaud that, and see absolutely nothing wrong with it.

This will be something to watch very closely.

Niteboy If that is what you support then I see no problem with it, I agree that this should play itself out. My only concern is that "classified" information might have to be leaked in the process, but we’ll have to wait and see.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

then it means that the feds can do warrantless wiretaps.

Exactly. . . and that is exactly where is heading taking into consideration that Bush already has two is buddies sitting in the supreme bench thrones you can pretty much guess what is next.

Let see what we lost. . .Yes. . . for anybody that is old enough to remember it was something that used to be call right to privacy. . .

The old good days of constitutional rights protection. . . they are a thing of the past. . .

[edit on 17-8-2006 by marg6043]

I am not a lawyer/judge but doesn't Warrentless = Unconstitutional, but I guess it's like the old adage: Don't whizz down my back and tell me it's raining. I might be dumb enuff to believe it and that may seem to be how the higher ups perceive the public to be these days!

I am retarded.....Warrantless

[edit on 8/17/2006 by GregR1965]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
But yet you take the views of a single federal district judge as gospel because you agree with them but if the Supreme Court of the United States rules otherwise they are "paid".? :shk:

Imho this single federal district judge ruled correctly, however I am unsure whether she is a good judge or whether she made her ruling at this time because the november elections are coming up and this ruling will give democrats some ammo.
.

I thought the whole wire tapping thing was over the NSA listening in on phone calls made to places like Pakistan and Iran and such. I haven't heard of them listening in on domestic calls. Am I missing something here?

in a convaluted way this actually makes sense.

the more rights they take away, the easier it is to protect the few that we have...

though it's backwards logic, it does make some sense.

i just hope that they rule against the wiretaps, it's not like they have to do a lot more work to get them if the supreme court says they need a warrant anyway