Judge Rules Parts of Patriot Act "Unconstitutional"

[cabin pressure]

2 provisions of the enabling act just got declared unconstitutional!

I don't know why this takes so long, but it's nice to see at least one federal judge can actually read the constitution.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20999950/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070926...act_lawsuit;_ylt=AohZOfG29.TNbnpS52eI55us0NUE

Those who refuse to learn history are doomed to repeat it

 

[Wildalaska]

Enabling Act?

O I get it trite rhetoric

WildcuteAlaska TM

PS.It amazes me that we are unable to have important issues brought to our attention without such silly Titles.

PPS. Now if a District Court Judge had ruled otherwise, the screaming would be how bad we need an appeal, etc....we all know how the glorious 9th will rule on this one, Ill just wait for the Supremes.

PPPS...reading the "news" article leads me to lots of procedural questions...anyone have a link to the decision?

 

[Thunderhawk88]

we all know how the glorious 9th will rule on this one

The 9th Circuit doesn't rule, it PERFORMS!

 

[Mike Irwin]

"brought to our attention without such silly Titles."

What, you mean like the WildAlaska title?

 

[FirstFreedom]

"But if you have nothing to hide, why would you care?"

Outstanding (and correct) ruling.

 

[Wildalaska]

What, you mean like the WildAlaska title?

But that is silliness qua silliness, vis a vis silliness qua stupidity

Outstanding (and correct) ruling.

Spoken like a man who has read the decision

WildorareyoutalkingabouttheoriginalactAlaska TM

 

[CrazyIvan007]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/09/26/patriot.act.ap/index.html

Bout time someone stands up to these jackholes...

 

[Wildalaska]

Duplicate thread.

WildyouhavereadthedecisiontooiseeAlaska TM

 

[CrazyIvan007]

My Bad...but the title of the other thread did not refer to "The Patriot Act"

 

[JuanCarlos]

In fairness, the other thread isn't descriptively named.

 

[Wildalaska]

Yeah when the mods combine they should use this title

WildgoodjobcrazyAlaska TM

 

[Al Norris]

Threads merged and using the second title, as it is more discriptive of the actual contents.

 

[Al Norris]

Found It! the decision is here.

 

[xd9fan]

I wish the judge would also rule that the laws name needs changed as well.
Being a Patriot has nothing to do with this law. The founders would roll in their collective graves at the idea of it.

 

[Wildalaska]

OK thanks Al. I see this was a grant of summary judgement. I dont see any mention of injunctive relief precluding further use of the statute in question. I assume an appeal has been filed?

WildhasafewproceduralissuesAlaska TM

 

[Al Norris]

It has yet to be filed, but I assume they will. One can only wonder what the 9th will say. sigh... Guess it depends which judges are on the panel.

 

[Wildalaska]

Good issue for the Supremes to get....of course, who knows what the next justice department may do

WildtheconstitutionflowswiththepoliticsAlaska TM

 

[publius42]

44 pages?

Good grief. By the revised thread title, I suspect that I agree with the ruling, but it does violate publius' rule of opinion complexity: If you can't say it in a few pages, I'm not likely to agree with it. Or finish reading it.

 

[Al Norris]

Just to offer a quick opinion... I think the decision will be reversed on Standing. I simply cannot see the particularized injury. The government has data on Mayfield. So? The government has data on a lot of people. Until the government acts upon that data, where is the injury?

As much as I think some Standing issues are too strict (see Parker, Seegars & Navegear: D.C. Circuit), it is also not good to loosen the issue to the point where every perceived harm can claim standing. This is what Aikens decision may well do.

As for the 4th amendment claim? It appears to be murky. That is an issue that may never get the chance to be heard though. Especially if the 9th Circuit reverses on Standing, which I now believe they will do.