General Discussion

COLGATE4

(14,875 posts)

53. First of all, because it's nothing but simplistic

Mon Jul 8, 2013, 04:10 PM

Jul 2013

to assume that Repub,lican judges are necessarily going to support the government. I'm not even sure that these 10 are even 'republican judges'. Does that mean a Republican President appointed them to the bench or does it mean that they are registered Republicans? If a Republican President appointed them they may as well be Liberals - look at David Souter. And even if they're registered Republicans, so what? Have we gotten to the point that anyone of a different political persuasion is automatically deemed so untrustworthy as to not be able to hold a position that demands great moral probity. Most judges I've ever know or know of tend to play things very much down the middle. Even most of the admittedly conservative Federal Judges are not known for knee-jerk support of Republican ideas.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

79 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Secret law is not law. It is a fundamental breach of the social contract . [View all] kpete Jul 2013 OP

Indeed and thank you for posting. +1 eom Purveyor Jul 2013 #1

yeah, but most Americans are too fat and happy in their illusions that they actually matter Nanjing to Seoul Jul 2013 #2

Most Americans are in various stages of denial making it easy for the tyrants. nm rhett o rick Jul 2013 #8

That is not true in a representative democracy FarCenter Jul 2013 #3

If/when one is arrested for breaking one of these secret laws... ret5hd Jul 2013 #6

Ignorance of a secret law is an excuse, by definition. Orsino Jul 2013 #9

Impossible for an individual person to break these "secret laws" treestar Jul 2013 #11

How the hell do you know that to be a fact? The law is "secret", remember? ret5hd Jul 2013 #12

The laws aren't secret. Igel Jul 2013 #40

There are cases on it treestar Jul 2013 #48

No, it isn't a plebiscite on every law, but in a representative democracy a law has to be known. enough Jul 2013 #7

this is one point that I don't understand about the surveillance state debate.... mike_c Jul 2013 #4

Many choose to live in authoritarian denial. nm rhett o rick Jul 2013 #20

I don't think you even have to be an authoritarian (though it helps) Romulus Quirinus Jul 2013 #67

Yes, many people live in total deniablity, thinking that the authoritarian state will rhett o rick Jul 2013 #69

As Ron Wyden has said, 'if the people knew how they are using the law they would be sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #5

It is not entirely secret treestar Jul 2013 #10

It should be noted that those decisions were made in a vastly different world. Romulus Quirinus Jul 2013 #19

So back to the President having no checks on spying treestar Jul 2013 #43

I'm afraid I don't see how this addresses my post. Romulus Quirinus Jul 2013 #44

Well if you read the case I posted there treestar Jul 2013 #46

I assume that you are arguing in good faith. I would appreciate it if you would do the same for me. Romulus Quirinus Jul 2013 #49

OK so you have no intent to argue in good faith treestar Jul 2013 #50

Thanks for the comprehensive list of cites. But COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #51

Thank you for being a person who actually understands! treestar Jul 2013 #62

But it's so much more fun to swoon and breast-beat about COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #65

*Waves* Romulus Quirinus Jul 2013 #68

You do realize that this isn't the opinion of the court, but a quote from the amicae curiae brief Romulus Quirinus Jul 2013 #52

Here is an article in from Dr. Anthony Clark Arend of Georgetown University Romulus Quirinus Jul 2013 #54

According to the ACLU, it is the USA PATRIOT act which enables this level of surveillance, rather Romulus Quirinus Jul 2013 #56

Started an OP here: Romulus Quirinus Jul 2013 #59

FISA is a fig leaf and a rubber stamp. RufusTFirefly Jul 2013 #29

Even so, then at least they are looking at it treestar Jul 2013 #45

Again I have to ask: why do some here trust 10 Repub judges to secretly define privacy? magellan Jul 2013 #13

magellan, good question n/t saidsimplesimon Jul 2013 #25

First of all, because it's nothing but simplistic COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #53

Because liberals can't be trusted with national security? Enthusiast Jul 2013 #34

Where does this idea come from? magellan Jul 2013 #38

The media willingly joined a Enthusiast Jul 2013 #39

Yeah, the list of Repub national security failures magellan Jul 2013 #47

Calling them socialists is just part of the ruse. Enthusiast Jul 2013 #57

Anyone to the left of Attila the Hun is a liberal to a Teabagger magellan Jul 2013 #60

Exactly. Enthusiast Jul 2013 #71

Secret Laws and Secret Government are un-American. Octafish Jul 2013 #14

Rec nt Zorra Jul 2013 #15

The FISA law ProSense Jul 2013 #16

No, its secret law, not "just" secret execution LondonReign2 Jul 2013 #24

No, the ProSense Jul 2013 #35

ProSense, yawn, been there, heard that, you are entitled to saidsimplesimon Jul 2013 #28

So ProSense Jul 2013 #33

I like unhappycamper's sigline: kentuck Jul 2013 #17

+1 truebluegreen Jul 2013 #18

+2 ReRe Jul 2013 #22

That's a great quote. Still, ProSense Jul 2013 #37

With such an idea in mind does it give them a right to....... nolabels Jul 2013 #55

Me too. Enthusiast Jul 2013 #41

Amen to that! FiveGoodMen Jul 2013 #21

To the 100th power! DeSwiss Jul 2013 #23

Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Jul 2013 #26

So absolutely fundamental: Sunlight is the best disinfectant. n/t RufusTFirefly Jul 2013 #27

Secret law and secret courts are tyranny The Second Stone Jul 2013 #30

It's debatable if you can even call it "law." It certainly isn't legal, no matter how the courts leveymg Jul 2013 #31

Once again - the law is not secret. COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #64

The rulings and interpretations are the substance of the law, the statute is just black letter leveymg Jul 2013 #66

Then you would guess wrong. COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #76

No. Records are rarely sealed, except in FISA/nat'l security, and some civil cases by agreement. leveymg Jul 2013 #77

Don't be obtuse. The record of court decisions COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #78

The fact that this has to be said speaks to how deep in shit we are. TheKentuckian Jul 2013 #32

Kicked and Recommended! nt Enthusiast Jul 2013 #36

K&R nt Waiting For Everyman Jul 2013 #42

It appears Obama does not agree and is fighting to keep mysterious redefinitions of our law secret. Dragonfli Jul 2013 #58

That makes so much sense libodem Jul 2013 #61

That's a keeper. Very well said n/t Catherina Jul 2013 #63

Secrecy is specifically allowed for in the Constitution Recursion Jul 2013 #70

But it sound like either the whole House or Senate is required to vote on it... kentuck Jul 2013 #75

Couldn't this be said about all warrants? Life Long Dem Jul 2013 #72

These "secret laws" are the government's self-limitations on surveillance Recursion Jul 2013 #73

Thank You For Sharing cantbeserious Jul 2013 #74

kick temmer Jul 2013 #79