Rand Paul hypocrisy (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

tazzygirl -> Rand Paul hypocrisy (6/11/2013 10:17:15 PM)

Rand Paul: NSA Surveillance Programs Warrant Supreme Court Challenge

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Sunday that he is weighing a Supreme Court challenge to the National Security Agency's controversial surveillance programs, calling the organization's collection of records an "extraordinary invasion of privacy."

"I'm going to be seeing if I can challenge this at the Supreme Court level," Paul said on Fox News Sunday. "I’m going to be asking all the internet providers and all of the phone companies: Ask your customers to join me in a class action lawsuit. If we get 10 million Americans saying we don’t want our phone records looked at, then maybe someone will wake up and something will change in Washington."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/09/rand-paul-nsa_n_3411587.html

Wait... he wants to take this argument to the same court he said the following about?

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Following today's U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare, Sen. Rand Paul offered the following statement:

"Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional. While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right," Sen. Paul said.

"Obamacare is wrong for Americans. It will destroy our health care system. This now means we fight every hour, every day until November to elect a new President and a new Senate to repeal Obamacare," he continued.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/28/1103949/-Rand-Paul-SCOTUS-Doesn-t-Declare-Things-Constitutional

Put aside his political leanings. This is the court he wishes to argue with on the NSA? A court he, himself, has determined isnt the definitive answer on what is or isnt constitutional?



JeffBC -> RE: Rand Paul hypocrisy (6/11/2013 10:23:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Put aside his political leanings. This is the court he wishes to argue with on the NSA? A court he, himself, has determined isnt the definitive answer on what is or isnt constitutional?

Again, it makes sense to me. If I were in such a situation (which I might well be) you'd be hearing the split view because you'd be hearing two different contexts.

Context A: I no longer believe the judges care about anything but corporate money. Ergo, it's a kangaroo court.
Context B: Kangaroo court or not, if it's even remotely feasible that I could somehow get a change to something important by going there I'd try. I just wouldn't have much hope.

In this case I think the opinions of the court are already well known. I can't imagine why on earth he'd bother other than political posturing.



tazzygirl -> RE: Rand Paul hypocrisy (6/11/2013 10:25:08 PM)

And yet its his political posturing that is undermining his credibility, in my opinion.



JeffBC -> RE: Rand Paul hypocrisy (6/11/2013 10:28:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
And yet its his political posturing that is undermining his credibility, in my opinion.

In terms of state surveillance, the Supreme Court is cool with whatever.
The senate and house can have enough fast enough.
The administration is going full steam ahead.

Honestly, it's recall elections or live with it.




DomKen -> RE: Rand Paul hypocrisy (6/12/2013 3:00:22 AM)

FR
Paul is simply posturing to score points with the GOP primary voters. There is no chance the Supreme Court would find these programs unconstitutional, they have already turned down several cases during the Bush administration on the matter.



isoLadyOwner -> RE: Rand Paul hypocrisy (6/12/2013 3:17:34 AM)

An essential element to these suits is standing to sue.

Until Obama's gross overreach, absolutely NOONE had standing to sue.

There were no known aggrieved parties, everything was secret. There was no case for the Court to possibly hear.

The ACLU and every other Verizon customer now has actual standing to sue in Federal Court for violations of their Constitutional Rights.

Congress has not been able to repeal the Bill of Rights nor its Amendments and those do tend to trump Statutes.

Time will tell if Obama and the NSA has gathered enough dirt on the SCOTUS to force them to abandon any pretense of guarding the freedoms promised in the Bill of Rights and its Amendments.



Owner59 -> RE: Rand Paul hypocrisy (6/12/2013 8:04:24 AM)

This is ANOTHER issue the cons will flub if they make it about President Obama.


Not that that would bother me but I think a good conversation about the 4th Amendment would be healthy.


That`ll never happen if the jerkoffs keep sniping at the President and make every point an opportunity to attack him rather that discuss it like adults.



JeffBC -> RE: Rand Paul hypocrisy (6/12/2013 8:39:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
This is ANOTHER issue the cons will flub if they make it about President Obama.

Agreed... but honestly the Republicans don't want to stop state surveillance. They just want to be in charge of it. SO from their standpoint if they manage to hang it on Obama then it's a win. If they fail it becomes like Umbrella-gate

To be fair, he is the current architect of all this though. You know that whole "buck stops here" thing?



tazzygirl -> RE: Rand Paul hypocrisy (6/12/2013 9:32:51 AM)

quote:

Agreed... but honestly the Republicans don't want to stop state surveillance. They just want to be in charge of it. SO from their standpoint if they manage to hang it on Obama then it's a win. If they fail it becomes like Umbrella-gate


Havent most issues become like Umbrella-gate?



Owner59 -> RE: Rand Paul hypocrisy (6/12/2013 9:40:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
This is ANOTHER issue the cons will flub if they make it about President Obama.

Agreed... but honestly the Republicans don't want to stop state surveillance. They just want to be in charge of it. SO from their standpoint if they manage to hang it on Obama then it's a win. If they fail it becomes like Umbrella-gate

To be fair, he is the current architect of all this though. You know that whole "buck stops here" thing?



Normal folks who supported the President aren`t going to change their mind over this.


That the adult con-children will try to hump the issue for politics is a given.


The President is pretty good at letting them fuck themselves in the ass tho.....



DomKen -> RE: Rand Paul hypocrisy (6/12/2013 10:37:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: isoLadyOwner

An essential element to these suits is standing to sue.

Until Obama's gross overreach, absolutely NOONE had standing to sue.

There were no known aggrieved parties, everything was secret. There was no case for the Court to possibly hear.

The ACLU and every other Verizon customer now has actual standing to sue in Federal Court for violations of their Constitutional Rights.

Congress has not been able to repeal the Bill of Rights nor its Amendments and those do tend to trump Statutes.

Time will tell if Obama and the NSA has gathered enough dirt on the SCOTUS to force them to abandon any pretense of guarding the freedoms promised in the Bill of Rights and its Amendments.

Dream on. The ACLU vs. NSA settled the matter.



kdsub -> RE: Rand Paul hypocrisy (6/12/2013 11:21:58 AM)

Unless I am mistaken he is a member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security. This would mean, I would think, that he was well aware of the NSA information gathering programs before the latest revelations.

Why did he not challenge the programs when he first was briefed on them? I would hope it is not because he can make political hay now that they are in the news.

Butch




DomKen -> RE: Rand Paul hypocrisy (6/12/2013 11:42:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Unless I am mistaken he is a member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security. This would mean, I would think, that he was well aware of the NSA information gathering programs before the latest revelations.

Why did he not challenge the programs when he first was briefed on them? I would hope it is not because he can make political hay now that they are in the news.

I think your hopes are dashed.



Owner59 -> RE: Rand Paul hypocrisy (6/12/2013 12:15:53 PM)

"I would hope it is not because he can make political hay now that they are in the news."


[8|]

Rand Paul introduces 4th Amendment Restoration Act



Sen. Rand Paul today announced he will introduce the Fourth Amendment Restoration Act of 2013, which ensures the Constitutional protections of the Fourth Amendment are not violated by any government entity.

“The revelation that the NSA has secretly seized the call records of millions of Americans, without probable cause, represents an outrageous abuse of power and a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. I have long argued that Congress must do more to restrict the Executive’s expansive law enforcement powers to seize private records of law-abiding Americans that are held by a third-party,” Sen. Paul said.


~~~~~~~

Yes and sadly.....yes.




cloudboy -> RE: Rand Paul hypocrisy (6/12/2013 12:21:20 PM)


No hypocrisy there, the Supreme Court is right when it supports his views.



isoLadyOwner -> RE: Rand Paul hypocrisy (6/12/2013 1:09:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: isoLadyOwner

An essential element to these suits is standing to sue.

Until Obama's gross overreach, absolutely NOONE had standing to sue.

There were no known aggrieved parties, everything was secret. There was no case for the Court to possibly hear.

The ACLU and every other Verizon customer now has actual standing to sue in Federal Court for violations of their Constitutional Rights.

Congress has not been able to repeal the Bill of Rights nor its Amendments and those do tend to trump Statutes.

Time will tell if Obama and the NSA has gathered enough dirt on the SCOTUS to force them to abandon any pretense of guarding the freedoms promised in the Bill of Rights and its Amendments.

Dream on. The ACLU vs. NSA settled the matter.

quote:

ACLU vs. NSA


Actually it didn't. That involved a different case, different controversy, different application of the Patriot Act, different factual scenario, different Constitutional abuses, and different evidence.

There are now millions and million of new Plaintiffs and the ACLU now has real standing to sue.

Bush initially lost in the lower Court decision, the Sixth Circuit Court reversed and SCOTUS denied cert.

Obama has created a vastly different fact pattern here. We'll see if Obama's grotesque attack on the Civil Liberties of all Americans will be rubber stamped by the Court.

The SCOTUS has not ruled on this and could not do so until a Plaintiff was found to have standing to sue.



isoLadyOwner -> RE: Rand Paul hypocrisy (6/12/2013 1:10:53 PM)

"In July 2007, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case, ruling the plaintiffs in the case - which includes scholars, journalists, and national nonprofit organizations - had no standing to sue because they could not state with certainty that they have been wiretapped by the NSA."

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-v-nsa-challenge-illegal-spying



DomKen -> RE: Rand Paul hypocrisy (6/12/2013 1:30:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: isoLadyOwner

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: isoLadyOwner

An essential element to these suits is standing to sue.

Until Obama's gross overreach, absolutely NOONE had standing to sue.

There were no known aggrieved parties, everything was secret. There was no case for the Court to possibly hear.

The ACLU and every other Verizon customer now has actual standing to sue in Federal Court for violations of their Constitutional Rights.

Congress has not been able to repeal the Bill of Rights nor its Amendments and those do tend to trump Statutes.

Time will tell if Obama and the NSA has gathered enough dirt on the SCOTUS to force them to abandon any pretense of guarding the freedoms promised in the Bill of Rights and its Amendments.

Dream on. The ACLU vs. NSA settled the matter.

quote:

ACLU vs. NSA


Actually it didn't. That involved a different case, different controversy, different application of the Patriot Act, different factual scenario, different Constitutional abuses, and different evidence.

There are now millions and million of new Plaintiffs and the ACLU now has real standing to sue.

Bush initially lost in the lower Court decision, the Sixth Circuit Court reversed and SCOTUS denied cert.

Obama has created a vastly different fact pattern here. We'll see if Obama's grotesque attack on the Civil Liberties of all Americans will be rubber stamped by the Court.

The SCOTUS has not ruled on this and could not do so until a Plaintiff was found to have standing to sue.

Nope. The issue then was worse, no warrants for wiretaps, but since no damages could be shown no one had standing to sue which is exactly the same case now. You ODS sufferers are hoist on your own petards for your unwavering support of W.



tazzygirl -> RE: Rand Paul hypocrisy (6/12/2013 1:40:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: isoLadyOwner

"In July 2007, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case, ruling the plaintiffs in the case - which includes scholars, journalists, and national nonprofit organizations - had no standing to sue because they could not state with certainty that they have been wiretapped by the NSA."

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-v-nsa-challenge-illegal-spying


They have proof now they were wiretapped?



isoLadyOwner -> RE: Rand Paul hypocrisy (6/12/2013 1:44:00 PM)

I never supported Bush.

Damages and standing are legal terms. In 2006 and 2007 noone could state with certainty that they had been wiretapped.

Now millions of people as well as some organizations can show they have been wiretapped by the NSA and thus may now assert a violation of their Civil Liberties in Federal Court.

Without a Plaintiff with standing the Court can not hear the case on its merits.

In 2009, SCOTUS split 5-4 on whether to hear Amnesty v Clapper et al.

"In 2009, a judge in New York dismissed the suit on the grounds that the ACLU’s clients couldn’t prove that their communications would be monitored under the new law. A federal appeals court reversed that ruling in 2011 and the Obama administration appealed the issue to the Supreme Court, which heard oral argument in October 2012. In a 5-4 ruling handed down on February 26, 2013, the Supreme Court held the the ACLU plaintiffs don't have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the warrantless wiretapping program."

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/amnesty-et-al-v-clapper




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875