9th circuit eliminates right to redress of grievances

S

SmarterthanYou

rebel
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/us/09secrets.html

A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled that former prisoners of the C.I.A. could not sue over their alleged torture in overseas prisons because such a lawsuit might expose secret government information.

Judge Raymond C. Fisher described the case, which reversed an earlier decision, as presenting “a painful conflict between human rights and national security.” But, he said, the majority had “reluctantly” concluded that the lawsuit represented “a rare case” in which the government’s need to protect state secrets trumped the plaintiffs’ need to have a day in court.
Click to expand...

anyone wake up yet?
 
We ought to peacefully assemble in front of the 9th circuit to redress our grievances and see how quickly they send out the storm troopers to beat in our heads.
 
This is why the Dems deserve to lose the midterms. They and Obama have done absolutely nothing on restoring our civil liberties or reducing the powers of the president to those granted by the constitution.
 
It's really a shame that 'stare decisis' only works when in the governments favor.

Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616
“The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.”
 
Still blaming Bush/Cheney ?

The Ninth Circuit is politically liberal and out of step with Supreme Court precedent, and the large size of the court prevents it from maintaining a coherent body of case law.

According to the most current count, the Ninth Circuit has the highest percentage of active judges appointed by Democratic presidents, with 59%. Until 2003, this percentage was much higher.
 
Yurt said:
the title is a bit of hyperbole...

the case only applies to this particular case, it is not a broad ruling at all
Click to expand...

hyperbolic? why yes, it's meant to be. the courts have continually whittled away at all constitutional protections that they were assigned to protect. further expanding the 'state secrets' doctrine is just one more notch to do so.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
hyperbolic? why yes, it's meant to be. the courts have continually whittled away at all constitutional protections that they were assigned to protect. further expanding the 'state secrets' doctrine is just one more notch to do so.
Click to expand...

where did they expand it? from what i read...they simply applied it to the facts of this case....
 
Yurt said:
where did they expand it? from what i read...they simply applied it to the facts of this case....
Click to expand...

as a lawyer, you should be aware of the fact that the longer a precedent sits in holding, the more it is applied to other cases. The more cases it's applied to, the more expansive a power becomes. Surely you are not unfamiliar with this concept.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
as a lawyer, you should be aware of the fact that the longer a precedent sits in holding, the more it is applied to other cases. The more cases it's applied to, the more expansive a power becomes. Surely you are not unfamiliar with this concept.
Click to expand...

I've always thought this was a stupid facet of our legal system. It guarantees a snowballing effect of stupidity.

This whole courtroom is out of order.
pacino_art_160_20080321124700.jpg
 
SmarterThanYou said:
as a lawyer, you should be aware of the fact that the longer a precedent sits in holding, the more it is applied to other cases. The more cases it's applied to, the more expansive a power becomes. Surely you are not unfamiliar with this concept.
Click to expand...

that is not the way it works...if it applies to the same set of facts, it is not expanded....just because there are two identical cases does not mean the law is expanded
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top