Supremes reject challenge to Bush’s spying

The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned down a legal challenge to the warrantless domestic spying program President George W. Bush created after the September 11 attacks.

The American Civil Liberties Union had asked the justices to hear the case after a lower court ruled the ACLU, other groups and individuals that sued the government had no legal right to do so because they could not prove they had been affected by the program.

The civil liberties group also asked the nation’s highest court to make clear that Bush does not have the power under the U.S. Constitution to engage in intelligence surveillance within the United States that Congress has expressly prohibited.

“The president is bound by the laws that Congress enacts. He may disagree with those laws, but he may not disobey them,” Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, said in the appeal.

Bush authorized the program to monitor international phone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens without first obtaining a court warrant. The program’s disclosure in December 2005 caused a political uproar among Democrats, some Republicans and civil liberties activists.

The administration abandoned the program about a year ago, putting it under the surveillance court that Congress created more than 30 years ago.

The high court’s action means that Bush will be able to disregard whatever legislative eavesdropping restrictions Congress adopts as there will be no meaningful judicial review, the ACLU attorneys said.

The journalists, scholars, attorneys and national advocacy groups that filed the lawsuit said the illegal surveillance had disrupted their ability to communicate with sources and clients.

The appeals court based in Cincinnati dismissed the case because the plaintiffs could not state with certainty they had been wiretapped by the government’s National Security Agency.

Administration lawyers opposed the appeal and said further review by the Supreme Court was unwarranted.

The Supreme Court sided with the administration and rejected the appeal without any comment.


  1. Flapsaddle

    It is a lack of standing. If you are not party to the case or are not likely to be affected by a decision, then you generally have no business in the case.

    The law is not necessarily about good/bad, moral/immoral or right/wrong; it is about what you can/cannot do.

    Most sincerely,

    T. J. Flapsaddle

  2. Wayne K Dolik

    I am not surprised at this latest move by the Supremes. Remember, they were the ones who appointed the Decider to his term in office. Of course we know now the election in Florida and Ohio was caged and the vote was rigged.

    Folk’s wake-up! These Judges are not any better that the Crooks we keep sending to Congress. A criminal cabal has hijacked America.

    Let us not forget that President Kennedy was killed because he was against secrecy in our government and society. Secrecy is the plague of the new century.

  3. Flapsaddle

    I disagree. Kennedy was, IMCO, most likely capped by the Cubans in revenge for the Kennedy boys trying to do in Castro.

    The cover-up and conspiracy was (1) to keep the country out of what would doubtlessly be a war with Cuba and the Russians, and (2) to keep the country from realizing that their darling little Smilin’ Jack and the entire disfunctional “royal family” was up to its armpits in organized crime.

    I do not buy the revisionist notion that Kennedy was some kind of dovish savior who was all sweetness and light; he was a chip off of old Joe, who was a conniving bootlegger and robber-baron.

    Most sincerely,

    T. J. Flapsaddle

  4. Wayne K Dolik

    T.J. I didn’t say who killed Kennedy. I said that there were forces that were secret that killed Kennedy. It was well known at the time that Kennedy did not want a war with the USSR and Cuba, but others in the M.I.C. did. He was also at odds with the C.I.A.

    According to E. Howard Hunt the ringleader was non other than L.B.J! It’s better to look closer to home when you want answers.

  5. griff

    It seems the Supreme Court has let the Democrats off the hook on this one. Now they can blame it on the Supreme Court and pretend they were prepared to fight over this one, even though they would have caved in the end.

    Concerning the Kennedy posts, google “northwoods”.

  6. Ted Remington

    So what we have here is a secrewt government wiretapping operation that may (or may not) wiretap US citizens who are doing nothing more than going about their mundane lives. And then someone comes along and says, “This is not constitutional.”

    So they sue the Government to stop what they consider illegal wiretapping. And the Government responds, “Well, since you can’t prove you are being wiretapped you don’t have the standing to bring suit to stop the wiretapping we don’t even admit is going on.”

    And the courts have to agree with the Government.

    Which means that only those people who have been subject to illegal wiretapping have the right to require court intervention to get the Government to stop it. But the Government refuses to tell who, if anyone, is the subject of the wiretapping. Shall we assign a new catch number to this one? Catch-22 seems SO last century.