Congress wants patriot act provisions permanent

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-04-10 06:43pm

Alyeska wrote:
Ted wrote:
Alyeska wrote:And then the Patriot act will have a quick death when it is ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
You really believe that will hapen?
Yes I do. The Supreme Court does not owe anyone anything and they do what they want, not what their party says. There is a relatively long history of judges changing their stance on issues and doing what they want once becoming Supreme Court justices. The SCUTUS is not tame to Bush.

Remembers a certian Eisenhower appointee that got schools desegragated, miranda rights, and other civil liberties added after a history of being a staunch Tough, Hanging Judge, Republican.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-04-10 07:19pm

The Yosemite Bear wrote:Remembers a certian Eisenhower appointee that got schools desegragated, miranda rights, and other civil liberties added after a history of being a staunch Tough, Hanging Judge, Republican.

Earl Warren, of Warren Commission fame. I can think of a more recent example: David Souter, a George H. W. Bush apointee who turned out to be one of the most liberal justices on the court.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-04-10 08:54pm

If the Supreme Court approves of it, the best we can hope for is that it is later deemed Unconstitutional and overturned, or it is never enforced and quickly forgotten. (There have to be thousands of laws on the books that nobody bothers enforcing, right?)

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2003-04-10 09:21pm

Queeb Salaron wrote:
RedImperator wrote:If Bush INSISTED on rewarding this doofus with a Cabinet seat, why couldn't it have been as Secretary of Agriculture or some other inconsequential post?
Maybe because Bush is a sadist?

No, the word you're looking for, I think, is "fascist".

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-04-10 09:49pm

Patrick Degan wrote:
Queeb Salaron wrote:
RedImperator wrote:If Bush INSISTED on rewarding this doofus with a Cabinet seat, why couldn't it have been as Secretary of Agriculture or some other inconsequential post?
Maybe because Bush is a sadist?
No, the word you're looking for, I think, is "fascist".

Sadist, fascist... remind you of any Middle Eastern men you know of? Maybe one with a moustache?

Yogi · Post by **Yogi** » 2003-04-10 10:01pm

The good part of the SC, is that since they aren't worrying about getting elected, they don't have to worry about kissing any particular groups' ass, so they can do whatever the hell they want.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-04-10 10:05pm

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:If the Supreme Court approves of it, the best we can hope for is that it is later deemed Unconstitutional and overturned, or it is never enforced and quickly forgotten. (There have to be thousands of laws on the books that nobody bothers enforcing, right?)

I think what we'll see is a general uprising of the citizens against this particular law, forcing lawmakers to stand up and take notice. I mean, if the people revolt, only the most corrupt of governments will refuse to take the hint and change things before anarchy starts to prevail. The liberals will cheer when the laws change, and the conservatives will claim that the country is starting to decay, with the first signs of mob rule showing. It happened with the Civil Rights Movement, and it will happen here. Because what we will be fighting for is similar: We wish to enjoy the same basic freedoms granted to us by the Constitution, freedoms that are both unalienable and infinitely logical. And it may take a brick or two through Ashcroft's lofty second-floor bedroom window. It may take a group of black-clad teenagers to write messages like "Privacy Is Our Right" in gasoline on the lawns of Constitution Park and light it on fire. God forbid, it may take years and years of constant pressure from the oppressed classes, especially the Arab minority, for someone to start listening. It may even take one isolated incedent of police violence under the precurser of an illigitmate investigation of terrorism. But a revolution will be incited, and regardless of the protection that the higher political classes can afford, their lives will be put in danger. And as such, things WILL change.

I dare the government to pass this bill. Because I will be the man with the brick outisde Ashcroft's window; I will be the black-clad boy with a can of gasoline; I will endure those long years while me and people around me become mice in governmental cages; I will be that boy who is beaten because I refuse to comply with unconstitutional investigations. And I would call on all of you to link arms with me and do the same. We can not, can NOT let this government push us around like this. We know our rights, and we are prepared to fight to keep them.

Darth Yoshi · Post by **Darth Yoshi** » 2003-04-10 11:37pm

I thought legislation didn't need to be challenged in court for the Supreme Court to overturn it.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-10 11:39pm

Darth Yoshi wrote:I thought legislation didn't need to be challenged in court for the Supreme Court to overturn it.

It does, the Supreme Court can't just pick pieces of legislation to strike down. Someone has to appeal it all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-10 11:56pm

Durran Korr wrote:
Darth Yoshi wrote:I thought legislation didn't need to be challenged in court for the Supreme Court to overturn it.
It does, the Supreme Court can't just pick pieces of legislation to strike down. Someone has to appeal it all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Question: if you are being held without due process and you are not allowed to talk to a lawyer (which has already happened in some cases), how are you supposed to appeal it to anyone, much less the Supreme Court?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-10 11:58pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:
Darth Yoshi wrote:I thought legislation didn't need to be challenged in court for the Supreme Court to overturn it.
It does, the Supreme Court can't just pick pieces of legislation to strike down. Someone has to appeal it all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Question: if you are being held without due process and you are not allowed to talk to a lawyer (which has already happened in some cases), how are you supposed to appeal it to anyone, much less the Supreme Court?

Someone held under the PATRIOT act and then released can sue the government for violating his/her rights.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-11 12:08am

Durran Korr wrote:Someone held under the PATRIOT act and then released can sue the government for violating his/her rights.

Not until they release him, and they can theoretically hold him forever.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-11 12:10am

Darth Wong wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:Someone held under the PATRIOT act and then released can sue the government for violating his/her rights.
Not until they release him, and they can theoretically hold him forever.

I highly doubt that everyone who will be held under the Patriot Act will be held forever.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-11 12:11am

It will find a way to be heard in front of the SCOTUS. Most watershed pieces of legislation do.

Darth Yoshi · Post by **Darth Yoshi** » 2003-04-11 12:37am

Darth Wong wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:
Darth Yoshi wrote:I thought legislation didn't need to be challenged in court for the Supreme Court to overturn it.
It does, the Supreme Court can't just pick pieces of legislation to strike down. Someone has to appeal it all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Question: if you are being held without due process and you are not allowed to talk to a lawyer (which has already happened in some cases), how are you supposed to appeal it to anyone, much less the Supreme Court?

Well, maybe the ACLU will sue for you.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-04-11 01:22am

Darth Yoshi wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Durran Korr wrote: It does, the Supreme Court can't just pick pieces of legislation to strike down. Someone has to appeal it all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Question: if you are being held without due process and you are not allowed to talk to a lawyer (which has already happened in some cases), how are you supposed to appeal it to anyone, much less the Supreme Court?
Well, maybe the ACLU will sue for you.

My thoughts exactly, or one of the lawyers who are lining up, will represent one of the reletives of the guy being held and try to get it up there that way.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-04-11 01:24am

Darth Yoshi wrote:Well, maybe the ACLU will sue for you.

That's what I was about to say. More likely, though, someone will sue the government over some other provision of the Patriot Act, and while they have it, the justices will invalidate the portions of the law allowing the government to hold people without due process. Even for non-citizens, I just can't see that provision standing--it pisses all over half the Constitution.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-04-11 02:28am

Darth Wong wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:
Darth Yoshi wrote:I thought legislation didn't need to be challenged in court for the Supreme Court to overturn it.
It does, the Supreme Court can't just pick pieces of legislation to strike down. Someone has to appeal it all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Question: if you are being held without due process and you are not allowed to talk to a lawyer (which has already happened in some cases), how are you supposed to appeal it to anyone, much less the Supreme Court?

I can also file an afidavit on behalf of someone being held with out due process or you can get their dependants to file it. Also since this is a federal law being violated (4th, 13th, & 14th amendments) you can actually file an injunction against the legislators in a preemptive move although since this is congress and the president they have emmintant domain which means they can reschedual the hearing on the injunction until hell freezes over. Like they have done with all the requests from the families afflicted with agent orange related illness.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-04-11 11:26pm

This has many civil libertarians on the Right quite upset as well, and with the recent victory in Iraq and the general situation being much more calmed, I doubt it will have the sort of success in passing that the original Act did. That said, all the petitions and hollaring and calling and mailing possible would be welcomed.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-11 11:44pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:This has many civil libertarians on the Right quite upset as well, and with the recent victory in Iraq and the general situation being much more calmed, I doubt it will have the sort of success in passing that the original Act did. That said, all the petitions and hollaring and calling and mailing possible would be welcomed.

Like Bob Barr, who was one of the best civil liberties advocates in Congress, until the fucking Libertarian party waged their little bullshit campaign against him so he would lose the election.