quote:

In a ruling with potentially far-reaching consequences, a federal judge declared Monday that the National Security Agency's bulk collection of millions of Americans' telephone records likely violates the U.S. Constitution's ban on unreasonable search. The ruling, filled with blistering criticism of the Obama administration's arguments, is the first of its kind on the controversial program.

quote:

The public has no interest in saving the government from the burdens of complying with the Constitution

quote:

The public has no interest in saving the government from the burdens of complying with the Constitution

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Some snips from the ABC article that might suggest business as usual for NSA:

Robert F. Turner, a professor at the University of Virginia's Center for National Security Law, predicted Leon's decision was highly likely to be reversed on appeal. He said the collection of telephone metadata — the issue in Monday's ruling — already has been addressed and resolved by the Supreme Court.

"If part of his constitutional ruling is the intelligence utility of the program, he's not in a good position to judge that," Hayden said in an interview. "He makes a judgment that the government was not able to show that this stopped an imminent terrorist attack. That's not the only metric," as metadata also helps intelligence analysts understand their adversaries and track their networks and behavior.

The government has argued that under a 1979 Supreme Court ruling, Smith v. Maryland, no one has an expectation of privacy in the telephone data that phone companies keep as business records. In that ruling, the high court rejected the claim that police needed a warrant to obtain such records.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Some snips from the ABC article that might suggest business as usual for NSA:

Robert F. Turner, a professor at the University of Virginia's Center for National Security Law, predicted Leon's decision was highly likely to be reversed on appeal. He said the collection of telephone metadata — the issue in Monday's ruling — already has been addressed and resolved by the Supreme Court.

"If part of his constitutional ruling is the intelligence utility of the program, he's not in a good position to judge that," Hayden said in an interview. "He makes a judgment that the government was not able to show that this stopped an imminent terrorist attack. That's not the only metric," as metadata also helps intelligence analysts understand their adversaries and track their networks and behavior.

The government has argued that under a 1979 Supreme Court ruling, Smith v. Maryland, no one has an expectation of privacy in the telephone data that phone companies keep as business records. In that ruling, the high court rejected the claim that police needed a warrant to obtain such records.

Well as I asked in my OP I am thinking even though this court will violate Stare decisis when it chooses, they will uphold this as yet another baby step toward big brother. The govt. is still in conditioning stage and...it is working.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie
Just a note, stare decisis cannot be 'violated'. It isn't a law.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie
Just a note, stare decisis cannot be 'violated'. It isn't a law.

While it isn't law, as you state, it is a general practice to rely on it's use. "Violating" it would mean not taking relying on that/those precedent/s, and ruling in a manner different to precedent.