The Battle of the Judges: NY Judge Says NSA Metasearch Legal

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Next stop, the United States Supreme Court. This is going to be a profound ruling on the future direction of the country.

And they can't be trusted to rule in favor of the Constitution. This country is gone.

I am not so sure.

I believe a big factor in the acceptance by politicians of this obvious violation of our liberties is because none of them want to be that guy who rolled back any part of the War On Terra™ right before the next domestic terrorist attack. They are too chickenshit to cut the Defense budget for this reason, and they are too chickenshit to put a halt to the police state we are growing.

All you have to do is look at the way Bush was excoriated for years for not preventing 9/11, or the way Obama is vilified for Benghazi, to understand the political cowardice of this age. They all march in lock step toward totalitarianism. This is a time ripe for demagogues. Just imagine what the hacks and rubes would do after a domestic terror attack to a politician who fought for our rights.

But our Founders had the brilliant insight to ensure our judicial branch was comprised of unelected, politically insulated judges appointed for life. So I would not assume they are subject to the same political winds.

The judiciary is chock full of decisions they have made over the years where they caved into political pressure. I would argue the latest was the "Constitutionality" of ObamaCare. Another great example were the "Constitutionality of FDR's New Deal programs, all of which were originally shot down by SCOTUS only to be reversed after he threatened their jobs. Then you have rulings Kelo v New London which expanded Eminent Domain powers for the sole purpose of tax revenue. Even the Heller v D.C. decision, while favoring the Second Amendment, only did so by a 5-4 vote. Then there was the legality of DUI checkpoints, the affirming that the federal government can withhold highway funding from states who don't comply with the minimum alcohol consumption age or seat belt laws, etc. even though that money was taken from the states in the first place. Plessy v Ferguson? And while I'm pro-choice, let's be honest, Roe v Wade was a total crock of shit.

The judiciary has been just as complicit in expanding the rights of Washington at the expense of local governments and the American people. They can simply no longer be trusted to do the right thing.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Next stop, the United States Supreme Court. This is going to be a profound ruling on the future direction of the country.

And they can't be trusted to rule in favor of the Constitution. This country is gone.

I am not so sure.

I believe a big factor in the acceptance by politicians of this obvious violation of our liberties is because none of them want to be that guy who rolled back any part of the War On Terra™ right before the next domestic terrorist attack. They are too chickenshit to cut the Defense budget for this reason, and they are too chickenshit to put a halt to the police state we are growing.

All you have to do is look at the way Bush was excoriated for years for not preventing 9/11, or the way Obama is vilified for Benghazi, to understand the political cowardice of this age. They all march in lock step toward totalitarianism. This is a time ripe for demagogues. Just imagine what the hacks and rubes would do after a domestic terror attack to a politician who fought for our rights.

But our Founders had the brilliant insight to ensure our judicial branch was comprised of unelected, politically insulated judges appointed for life. So I would not assume they are subject to the same political winds.

Actually this is merely a symptom of the problem.

The root cause of the problem can be found with voters; fearful, cowardly citizens willing to surrender their freedom for the false perception of ‘security.’

In fact, the judiciary serves to protect the people from themselves, not the politicians, who would gladly end the surveillance programs if thought to be in their best political interests.

But the fact that two judges have so starkly disagreed on the same issue is compelling evidence that the judiciary is indeed capable of safeguarding our civil liberties.