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 wrote:
> He does sound kind of like a stooge.
>
> The process of denying standing
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 c
One of the problems with oversight by the judiciary is that it is
appallingly ignorant of technology on the whole. But some oversight is
better than no oversight. As for thinking the plaintiffs are delusional,
right. Tell it to Birgitta Jonsdottir. Or Kim Dotcom for that matter.
Or, more to the p
That particular defense has been quite successful for the government
so far. I'm in the 9th Circuit and we've had a couple of cases winding
their way through the system for awhile where the government
accidentally revealed that they had, in fact, done just what was
accused in this case, that they
The following conversation never happened, but it's what popped in my head
when I read the article:
Editor: "What the heck is this? A travel expense report to the Bahamas?!"
Journalist: "Well, you see, I had to go there because my source doesn't
trust phones any more..."
Editor: "For a whole wee
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 t
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/?ta
