For people who think that lawsuits can't do anything:
In the 1970's and 1980's, the courts were extremely active in policing the government. It was by all measures a much scarier time. Obama has a few drone strikes--Reagan was funding revolutions in other countries. It was the height of the cold war and the threat of nuclear holocaust, and the palpable fear about communism paled anything we see today over terrorism. Even in the early 2000's, in the throes of the aftermath of 9/11, the Supreme Court forced the Bush administration to dramatically adjust its policy on giving legal representation to inmates at Guantanamo.
Since then what has happened is a process of delegitimization of the judiciary. And both sides of the aisle have been to blame for this: from the right's talk of activist judges to Obama's physically menacing over the Justices during his state of the union. The judiciary has been at fault too: having overextended itself in the culture wars of the 1960's and 1970's, it very self-conciously adopted a mantra of extreme judicial restraint.
What you have left today is a judiciary that might no longer be able to effectively police the government. I've made it clear elsewhere that I don't think the current surveillance program is illegal, but it might not matter one way or the other. The judiciary's role in our system of checks and balances is ultimately rooted in faith in the legitimacy of the institution, and that faith has been dramatically eroded over the last two decades.
A scarier time? The executive branch has been given the power to murder Americans without any proper civilian judicial oversight. The executive branch has been given the power to indefinitely detain Americans, without any civilian judicial oversight. All the while the Feds are tracking and recording everything they can get their hands on.
A few drone strikes? We've built drone bases around the globe and are murdering thousands of innocent civilians with those strikes.
Fund revolutions in other countries? We're doing that in Syria right now. We actively participated in the revolution in Libya.
Another, perhaps overlooked fact, is that the path to the Supreme Court often starts with a lowly lawsuit claiming damages. Without somebody filing an initial suit at the local level, the case won't ever have the opportunity for SCOTUS review.
Reagan funded revolutions in Eastern Europe and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Obama's State Department is giving arms and money to Islamic revolutionaries in Syria, Algeria, Tunisia, and other countries. "We came, we saw, he died!"
And there isn't even a geostrategic goal like turning Afghanistan against the USSR; it's just setting fire to formerly stable Muslim nations in the name of "democracy", just as Bush did.
It may not be "illegal" per se, but I would certainly say that it's either unconstitutional or at the very least against the spirit of the constitution. For whatever the hell that's worth...
I love to make anti-lawyer jokes as much as the next guy, but it's just not true for the ACLU, EFF, and other public interest organizations.
ACLU lawyers make a fraction of what they could working for private law firms.
According to this article from 2007, a job at the ACLU will get you $59k starting wage vs. $160k working for private law firms. Note that these folks have the same college loans to payback. I think we owe them our respect and gratitude.
Cynicism ahead: periods of strife and conflict are among the best time to be a lawyer. The job isn't fun when everyone is happy and cooperative and agrees on everything.
[+] [-] rayiner|12 years ago|reply
In the 1970's and 1980's, the courts were extremely active in policing the government. It was by all measures a much scarier time. Obama has a few drone strikes--Reagan was funding revolutions in other countries. It was the height of the cold war and the threat of nuclear holocaust, and the palpable fear about communism paled anything we see today over terrorism. Even in the early 2000's, in the throes of the aftermath of 9/11, the Supreme Court forced the Bush administration to dramatically adjust its policy on giving legal representation to inmates at Guantanamo.
Since then what has happened is a process of delegitimization of the judiciary. And both sides of the aisle have been to blame for this: from the right's talk of activist judges to Obama's physically menacing over the Justices during his state of the union. The judiciary has been at fault too: having overextended itself in the culture wars of the 1960's and 1970's, it very self-conciously adopted a mantra of extreme judicial restraint.
What you have left today is a judiciary that might no longer be able to effectively police the government. I've made it clear elsewhere that I don't think the current surveillance program is illegal, but it might not matter one way or the other. The judiciary's role in our system of checks and balances is ultimately rooted in faith in the legitimacy of the institution, and that faith has been dramatically eroded over the last two decades.
[+] [-] adventured|12 years ago|reply
A few drone strikes? We've built drone bases around the globe and are murdering thousands of innocent civilians with those strikes.
Fund revolutions in other countries? We're doing that in Syria right now. We actively participated in the revolution in Libya.
[+] [-] bmelton|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] temphn|12 years ago|reply
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html?pagewante...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y
And there isn't even a geostrategic goal like turning Afghanistan against the USSR; it's just setting fire to formerly stable Muslim nations in the name of "democracy", just as Bush did.
[+] [-] timberlane|12 years ago|reply
In hindsight Bush. vs. Gore did a lot to erode this faith, and the ruling was probably a mistake.
Although, to it's credit, the court did not overturn Obamacare, probably because deciding such a partian battle would have further eroded this faith.
[+] [-] pvnick|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ChrisAntaki|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] h0w412d|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gesman|12 years ago|reply
Scenario 2: NSA wins, People lose, Lawyers wins
Now, who's the smartest?
[+] [-] nostromo|12 years ago|reply
ACLU lawyers make a fraction of what they could working for private law firms.
According to this article from 2007, a job at the ACLU will get you $59k starting wage vs. $160k working for private law firms. Note that these folks have the same college loans to payback. I think we owe them our respect and gratitude.
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20070311/SUB/70311015
[+] [-] jpdoctor|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baddox|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rayiner|12 years ago|reply