You want to read a major indictment of the judicial system read this, scroll past the first page of ad nonsense.
http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_07_4_roberts.pdf On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 4:51 PM, LRS Scout <lrssc...@gmail.com> wrote: > He does sound kind of like a stooge. > > The process of denying standing to plaintiffs because the process is > itself secret, and so they cannot prove to have been effected, has been > used to great success actually. It was widely feared that the NY court > would use similar reasoning to throw out NDAA case. Fortunately that court > saw the merits of the case and rule din the plaintiffs favor. > > > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 1:56 PM, PT <cft...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Wow. Jacobs sounds like an asshole. If he can't separate his personal >> distaste for the plaintiffs from the legal standing of their complaint, >> then he needs to recuse himself if the matter gets sent back to him. >> >> The government's defense is that the plaintiffs can't sue because no one >> caught them in the act? >> >> Yeah, I don't think that has ever really worked in any indictment. >> >> That attitude makes it clear that the spirit of the law is being ignored >> and that the law is only thought of as something inconvenient that has >> to be worked around. >> >> On 5/22/2012 1:15 PM, Dana wrote: >> > >> > >> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/05/supreme-court-to-decide-if-journalists-can-sue-over-warrantless-wiretaps/ >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:351117 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
