Judge: "Release eavesdropping documents"

[quietfan 233]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11389667/

Updated: 1:25 p.m. ET Feb. 16, 2006

WASHINGTON - A federal judge Thursday ordered the Justice Department to respond within 20 days to requests by a civil liberties group for documents about President Bush’s domestic eavesdropping program.

The ruling was a victory for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which sued the department under the Freedom of Information Act in seeking the release of the documents.

U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy ruled that the department must finish processing the group’s requests and produce or identify all records within 20 days.

“Given the great public and media attention that the government’s warrantless surveillance program has garnered and the recent hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the public interest is particularly well served by the timely release of the requested documents,” he said.

Kennedy also ordered the department to give the group a document index and declaration stating its justification for withholding any documents within 30 days.

The Washington-based center sought the documents from four Justice Department offices, including the office of the attorney general, after the New York Times first reported the eavesdropping program’s existence on Dec. 16.

...

It argued that the department played a key role in authorizing, implementing and overseeing the program, which involves surveillance by the National Security Agency.

Records sought by the group include an audit of the program, a “checklist” guide used to determine whether an individual’s phone or e-mail messages could be monitored, documents showing how information gleaned through eavesdropping had been used, and other legal opinions about the program.

The program, adopted by Bush after the Sept. 11 attacks, allows the monitoring of international communications into and out of the United States of persons linked to al Qaeda or related terrorist groups.

Disclosure of the program has sparked criticism from Democrats and some Republicans, with many lawmakers questioning whether Bush overstepped his authority. Civil-liberties groups have filed lawsuits challenging the program’s legality.

...

[AUslug 1]

Smooth move using the Freedom of Information Act. They were talking about this on CNN earlier today, should be interesting to see how it pans out.

[TrueBlue72 0]

Appeal it........ all the way to the supreme court if necessary........ Bush has appointed a conservative court, so use it and make the libbies squeal loudly and often.

[Tigermike 3,052]

Would one of our resident lawyer regular posters please tell up what the time parameters are for the freedom of information? Classified material is just that classified and if this group and this judge want the info, isn't there a 50 or 75 year wait?

Tell me again where it is in the constitution, bill of rights, declaration of independence, emancipation proclamation, mayflower compact or the rules for wheel of fortune that it says a federal judge is equal to or holds more power than the president or congress?

Where is it stipulated that a federal judge is or should be in charge of determining national security issues?

[LegalEagle 22]

Appeal it........ all the way to the supreme court if necessary........ Bush has appointed a conservative court, so use it and make the libbies squeal loudly and often.

220425[/snapback]

The idea that you've packed the U. S. Supreme Court with conservative lackies should be abhorred (??) not gleefully resorted to. How anti-American can you be? The whole system revolves around checks and balances. If you pack the court (or a board of Trustees *grin*) with your "yes men," then it fails to function properly.

TM - good questions. I don't have your answers. I do believe there is something to be considered in that the Federal Judges serve for life (is that all of them?) so they, in theory, would be insulated from the pressure of zealots such as the radicals on this board. Separate but equal didn't work out between the races, so I wonder if equality between the 3 branches would work. I guess it could be 2 against one. Supreme court could rule, and if the pres. didn't follow, the congress could impeach. Anyway, that's a great question.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Appeal it........ all the way to the supreme court if necessary........ Bush has appointed a conservative court, so use it and make the libbies squeal loudly and often.

220425[/snapback]

The idea that you've packed the U. S. Supreme Court with conservative lackies should be abhorred (??) not gleefully resorted to. How anti-American can you be? The whole system revolves around checks and balances. If you pack the court (or a board of Trustees *grin*) with your "yes men," then it fails to function properly.

220455[/snapback]

Spare us the mock indignation. Packing the courts by either side is a age old tradition which goes back to the founding of this country. Both sides have done it. The checks and balances of the system deals more in the division of powers between the 3 branches of Gov't, and not with in each branch.

[TrueBlue72 0]

We've had a supreme court packed with liberals for 50 years; it's about time to undo some of the damage they've done to the constitution and our way of life.

As far as packing the court, no one was more adept at that and the threat of it than was FDR, the liberal icon of the last century. We conservatives may take a while to learn the tricks, but once learned, we are pretty good at making them work for us the way the liberals have used them against us.

[LegalEagle 22]

I thought the majority of justices were picked by the republicans - even before the recent packing. Is that wrong. I really don't know. If I'm right, so much for the "libby" packing. AND it is BAD that the political position of a justice determines what our Constitution and laws mean.

[quietfan 233]

Informationally:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/members.pdf

Starting with FDR, the counts on Supreme court appointments by adminstration are:

Democrats: 19

(FDR-9; Truman-4; Kennedy-2; Johnson-2; Carter-0; Clinton-2)

Republicans: 18

(Eisenhower-5; Nixon-4; Ford-1; Reagan-4; GHW Bush-2; GW Bush-2)

[i've made no distinction between associates vs. chief justices)

Too close to support a claim of packing by either side, IMHO. FDR appointed the most, but he was also in office the longest--about 13 years. For comparison, in their 12-year span in the White House, Reagan/GHW Bush appointed a total of 6, and Eisenhower had 5 appointees during his 8 years in office.

It might also be worthwhile to compare number of appointees vs. time in the White House. Over this period the Democrats controlled the White House for 30 years: 1932-1952, 1960-1968, 1976-1980, & 1992-2000. The Republicans were in power 26 years: 1952-1960, 1968-1976, 1980-1992, & 2000-2006...giving GW Bush credit for all of 2006.

In terms of appointees per year, then, we have:

Democrats: 19 appointees in 30 yrs = 0.63 per year

Republicans: 18 appointees in 26 years = 0.69 per year

My conclusion? Niether side has much of an argument that the other overwhelmingly "packed the court". ....at least that's my opinion.

_ _ _ _

Oh...I have neither the time nor a convenient website to look up lower court appointments, but I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that they probably show the same relative distribution between presidential parties.

I just don't see any statistical basis for blaming "court packing" for decisions one doesn't like.

[LegalEagle 22]

Good job.

Beginning with Nixon, it's 13 to 2 Republicans. So you libbie lashers might need to rethink who is responsible for Supreme Court rulings you radicals don't agree with.

What do you radicals say about that?

[quietfan 233]

Just out of curiosity on a Saturday morning, I looked up some of the more famous recent Supreme Court decisions that many consider “landmark cases” of a “liberal” Court. These are summarized below with wikipedia links if you want more info. In parenthesis beside the name of each Justice is the President that appointed him. (When I label a justice as “Republican or Democrat”, I am referring to the party of the President that appointed him)

Roe vs. Wade (Jan 22, 1973):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

[7-2 decision recognizing women’s abortion rights as protected by the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th amendments]

Majority: Blackmun (Nixon), Burger (Nixon), Douglas (FDR), Brennan (Eisenhower), Stewart (Eisenhower), Marshall (LBJ), and Powell (Nixon)—5 Republican appointees, 2 Democratic appointees

Minority: White (JFK), Rehnquist (Nixon)—one appointee from each party

Engel vs. Vitale (Jun 25, 1962):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engel_v._Vitale

[6-1 decision banning school-led/school-sponsored prayer under the establishment of religion clause of the 1st amendment]

Majority: Black (FDR), Brennan (Eisenhower), Clark (Truman), Douglas (FDR), Harlan (Eisenhower), Warren (Eisenhower)—3 Republicans, 3 Democrats

Minority: Stewart (Eisenhower)—1 Republican

(Justices Frankfurter (FDR) and White (JFK), 2 Democrats, did not vote)

Miranda vs. Arizona (Jun 13, 1966)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona

[5-4 decision recognizing the rights of arrested suspects under the 5th & 6th amendments]

Majority: Black (FDR), Brennan (Eisenhower), Douglas (FDR), Fortas (LBJ), Warren (Eisenhower)—3 Democrats, 2 Republicans

Minority: Clark (Truman), Harlan (Eisenhower), Stewart (Eisenhower), White (JFK)—2 Democrats, 2 Republicans

Brown vs. Board of Education (May 17, 1954)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education

[unanimous 9-0 decision declaring “separate but equal” school systems segregrated by race as unconstitutional]

Of the nine member unanimous decision, only one of the justices (Warren, appointed by Eisenhower) was a Republican appointee. The other eight justices (Black, Burton, Clark, Douglas, Frankfurter, Jackson, Minton, and Reed) were appointed by either FDR or Truman.

So of these four landmark “liberal” decisions, I would consider only one, Brown vs. Board of Education, to be the product of an overwhelmingly Democrat court. And of the four, it is probably the least controversial--almost everyone, Republican or Democrat, accepts the injustice of segregated schools today. Roe vs. Wade is probably the most hotly debated of these four today, and five of the seven majority votes in that case came from Republican appointees.

If Republicans want to complain about a “liberal” court, perhaps they should start by questioning the appointments of Presidents from their own party.

[LegalEagle 22]

Wow qf, where's the Radical Republican response? Didn't the "libbies" make 'em vote that way?

I hope many "conservative Republicans" realize that they are victims of political rhetoric which is not based in fact.

The truth shall set you free.

[bammanmr 0]

I hope many "conservative Republicans" realize that they are victims of political rhetoric which is not based in fact.

220709[/snapback]

No truer words have ever been spoken on this board!