Judge Orders Bushco to Explain Legality of Spy Program

In an order issued late yesterday, Judge Taylor postponed until July 10 any argument on the government’s request to dismiss the case on state secrets grounds. The judge noted that the government had not bothered to submit briefs on the legality of the program, but said she would allow them to present arguments on June 12 “if they appear.” Until now, courts that have looked at the NSA spying program have not addressed the underlying constitutional issues.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/25736prs20060601.html

I think if our democracy will be saved it will be the judicial branch that does it. Let's hope that something good will come of this.

why does he hate America so much?

She hates America. :sarcasm: just saying.

that they have EVERYONE in their pockets.

Nothing will come of this, nothing will come of any of these so called upcoming indictments. No one of any importance in the Bush administration will be touched. Not Rove, Not Cheney, Not Bush...No one.


I'm sorry my attitude is so negative, but I am really starting to feel this way.

"...she would allow them to present arguments on June 12 “if they appear.” "
Does this give Bushco a way to duck out by not showing up?
Or is she expressing doubt that there are arguments that would be legal?

The ACLU briefing will provide members of the media with the latest background on its legal challenge and related legislative initiatives, survey the landscape of other NSA wiretapping cases and give reporters a first look at new legal documents to be filed by the ACLU late in the day on June 5.
=========

I read the "if they appear" line as being "if any arguments appear/occur to you" but can't say for sure. Saying that "Until now, courts that have looked at the NSA spying program have not addressed the underlying constitutional issues", the ACLU seems to imply that this judge does intend to address the const. issue, and noting that the govt didn't include anything about it supports that.

Could be spin- maybe Monday it will be clearer.

Hopefully the judge will address that great big elephant in the room. :)

BurtWorm posted an excellent NY Book Review that is very frightening.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19092
Power Grab

Elizabeth Drew
<snip>

During the presidency of George W. Bush, the White House has made an unprecedented reach for power. It has systematically attempted to defy, control, or threaten the institutions that could challenge it: Congress, the courts, and the press. It has attempted to upset the balance of power among the three branches of government provided for in the Constitution; but its most aggressive and consistent assaults have been against the legislative branch: Bush has time and again said that he feels free to carry out a law as he sees fit, not as Congress wrote it. Through secrecy and contemptuous treatment of Congress, the Bush White House has made the executive branch less accountable than at any time in modern American history. And because of the complaisance of Congress, it has largely succeeded in its efforts.

**********

Grover Norquist, a principal organizer of the conservative movement who is close to the Bush White House and usually supports its policies, says, "If you interpret the Constitution's saying that the president is commander in chief to mean that the president can do anything he wants and can ignore the laws you don't have a constitution: you have a king." He adds, "They're not trying to change the law; they're saying that they're above the law and in the case of the NSA wiretaps they break it." A few members of Congress recognize the implications of what Bush is doing and are willing to speak openly about it. Dianne Feinstein, Democratic senator from California, talks of a "very broad effort" being made "to increase the power of the executive." Chuck Hagel, Republican senator from Nebraska, says: "There's a very clear pattern of aggressively asserting executive power, and the Congress has essentially been complicit in letting him do it. The key is that Bush has a Republican Congress; of course if it was a Clinton presidency we'd be holding hearings."

**********

The President could of course veto a bill he doesn't like and publicly argue his objections to it. He would then run the risk that Congress would override his veto. Instead, Bush has chosen a method that is largely hidden and is difficult to challenge. As of this writing, Bush has never vetoed a bill (though he has threatened to do so in the case of a spending bill now pending in Congress). Some of the bills Bush has decided to sign and then ignore or subvert were passed over his objections; others were the result of compromises between Congress and the White House. Arlen Specter, the Republican senator from Pennsylvania and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told me, "Under the Constitution if the president doesn't like a bill he vetoes it. You don't cherry-pick the legislation."

Bush has cited two grounds for flouting the will of Congress, or of unilaterally expanding presidential powers. One is the claim of the "inherent" power of the commander in chief.Second is a heretofore obscure doctrine called the unitary executive, which gives the president power over Congress and the courts. The concept of a unitary executive holds that the executive branch can overrule the courts and Congress on the basis of the president's own interpretations of the Constitution, in effect overturning Marbury v. Madison (1803), which established the principle of judicial review, and the constitutional concept of checks and balances.

More at link....

That is great.

The Reagan Com in Chief excuse was obviously bull given we were not fighting the Contras officially. The GOP proposed that the Boland Amend was unconstitutional so Reagan could ignore -which is the unitary Exec theory - now gets reviewed! :-)

the unitary executive gives the "president power over Congress and the courts. The concept of a unitary executive holds that the executive branch can overrule the courts and Congress on the basis of the president's own interpretations of the Constitution, in effect overturning Marbury v. Madison (1803), which established the principle of judicial review, and the constitutional concept of checks and balances"

Watching how this Admin circumvents it will dictate how important.....

It's hard not to get discouraged when it feels as though this will just be another ruling for the criminals at the WH to ignore (that's how I interpret the comment "if they appear").

Looking forward to reading those briefs. Gov't attempts to justify the unjustifiable can be a hoot.

FISA Law and that violations will continue. Of course there is a freakin' Constitutional Crisis.

“Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.”

President Bush -- April 20, 2004

As this criminal was making this statement the NSA was wiretapping without seeking warrents.