Letters to the Editor
jmatrixrenegade
Published Letters: 14
-
Minor Correction
[Read the article: A genuine political sea change?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"This letter was signed by Sen. Reid's 50 colleagues in the caucus." [WP citation]
"all 50 Democratic Senators other than Harry Reid" [yours]
There aren't "50 Democratic" senators even with Reid. Two are independents. Anyway, does this mean that the ailing senator is doing well enough to at the very least sign on to such a letter? Any update on his condition?
Also, I was thinking that we need to be philosophical about current events. A around a decade ago, I didn't a presidential impeachment or popular vote loser was in the cards. A bit of 1990s naiviete, perhaps. Each generation tends to have its challenges, and this is ours. Or one of them. A perfect storm of corrupt and incompetent governance is upon us. Probability dictates it would come.
Our job is to see the dangers of what IS (not just can be) and let it serve as a warning of what bad citizenship (etc.) brings forth.
-
Standing
[Read the article: Yesterday's ruling on NSA warrantless eavesdropping]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I respectively disagree with GG's extended defense of the reasonableness (appears agnostic as to its correctness) of the standing ruling. I'd add that over at SCOTUSBlog, the summary of the ruling suggested one judge dismissively summarized the claims as fairly minor.
As Balkanization notes, the standing rules currently is a bit of a mess. This works both ways -- it suggests that the majority could have tried the case. The dissent ... even if it thought the question somewhat difficult ... thought so. Given the nature of the matter, including pragmatics involving the who is involved and the problems with this sort of claim (especially with current state secrecy doctrine -- see dissent -- stretched further than it need be), a judicial decision is proper here. Concerns about the "limits" of the courts is sound philosophy as a basic matter, but it doesn't work here.
I'm not a lawyer, though study constitutional issues more than the average person, but it seems a bit too patronizing to preach to "non-lawyer" sorts about the "reasonableness" of the courts not doing their jobs. LAWYERS pressed this claim (the dissent noted the attorney plaintiffs had the strongest case too), two judges upheld it (incl. on standing), so they too felt it proper and unjust to hold the other way. If anything, since they know how the courts are twisted sometimes selectively while others are told "keep out," they know MORE about the injustice of this result.
I respect the fact the majority here -- though as the dissent notes, they left something to be desired -- was not lawless or anything in the holding. But, we don't get extended lectures every time wrong opinions that have some degree of logic to them are handed down. We don't need it here. Standing rules were abused here ... unfair, unnecessary, and the wrong result. No need to defend them.
-
Standing II
[Read the article: Yesterday's ruling on NSA warrantless eavesdropping]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As to standing and trees, the (in)famous ruling that comes to mind is the one where Douglas wrote an elegant dissent (Sierra Club v. Morton?) about the right of us to have standing to protect resources.
For instance, perhaps a fisher org. can protect against violation of laws to guard against pollution of rivers. Esp. since other nations manage with weaker standing rules while having a workable judiciary that follows our lead in protecting individual rights while respecting democracy as far as it goes, I find some sort of regime of that sort reasonable. This case is not even that broad.
This is why it frankly annoys me to read M. cite the comment about the America citizenry having standing. The claim is in no way so amphorphous. Several posts underline the point, why focus on a strawman? Enough with being "disappointed" etc. The dissent was right. Standing was there. Did GG think the dissent was wrong on that point? Mona? Say so clearly.
I'd add that this blog discusses various constitutional principles that non-lawyers appear able to handle. The principle of standing is not so obscure that "laypersons" have to feel out of sorts wondering about such legal strangeness. To repeat, LAWYERS supported this case too. LAWYERS think the ruling is wrong. They are also "disappointed."
But not just.
-
Congress did something already
[Read the article: Yesterday's ruling on NSA warrantless eavesdropping]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]BTW, Congress DID do something ... see FISA. The President decided he had some inherent power and that the authorization to use force emphasized it more. Who else but the courts have the power and obligation to determine what the law is?
Congress can pass some new law etc. and the President can twist it again. The creatively nefarious executive and vague enough to be abused law will always be a danger, surely in the modern state. This emphasizes the importance of judicial review. Ok, I said my .03!
-
GG response
[Read the article: Yesterday's ruling on NSA warrantless eavesdropping]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I appreciate that GG responded to my comment but don't agree that his comments only clarify to non-lawyers the importance of standing limits.
The post also doesn't really focus on the dissent's refuation of the majority on the matter. It focuses on other matters, as if saying "well supporters of the opinion, and I respect your concerns as to standing, what is most important is ..." Wrong or not, that is how I read it.
As to my second comment, GG's response in effect also answered that question ... so thanks too.