« The Nativity is not Welcome in the City of Chicago | Main | Doe, a deer, a big dead deer »

The Supreme Court Tells The New York Times to Pound Sand

Last week I posted that the New York Times ran crying to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for help in order to keep Patrick Fitzgerald from reviewing phone records that could implicate two of their reporters for tipping off Islamic charities under investigation for funding terror of FBI raids.

Today we learn that the Supreme Court said not a chance:

The United States Supreme Court refused today to stop a federal prosecutor from reviewing the telephone records of two reporters for The New York Times. The records, the paper said, include information about many of the reporters' confidential sources.


In a one-sentence order offering no reasoning and noting no dissenting votes, the Supreme Court rejected a request from The Times to stay a lower court's decision while the paper tried to persuade the high court to review the case.

Today's order effectively allows the United States attorney in Chicago, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, to begin reviewing the records, which he has already obtained from phone companies, as early as this week.

The Justice Department told the Supreme Court on Friday that Mr. Fitzgerald is under enormous time pressure. "The statute of limitations," the government said, "will imminently expire on December 3 and 13, 2006, on certain substantive offenses that the grand jury is investigating."

The New York Times' attempt to run out the clock didn't work. Michelle Malkin put it best this way:

Message to blabbermouths: You are not above the law, no matter how ostentatiously you wrap yourselves in the First Amendment.

SCOTUSblog:

The Supreme Court, without noted dissent, refused on Monday to block the forced disclosure to federal investigators of telephone records of two New York Times reporters. Those records are being sought by a federal grand jury in an investigation of a suspected leak about freezing of the assets of two Islamic charities soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Stop the ACLU:

One can only hope that this ruling will make the NY Times and other MSM sources think twice before revealing classified information and tipping off terror-funding front groups.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Supreme Court Tells The New York Times to Pound Sand:

» Doug Ross @ Journal linked with What does Al Gore do with 50,000 spare DVDs?

» Maggie's Farm linked with Tuesday Morning Links

» Conservative Outpost linked with Daily Summary

Comments (20)

One can only hope ... (Below threshold)
Old Coot:
One can only hope that this ruling will make the NY Times and other MSM sources think twice before revealing classified information and tipping off terror-funding front groups.

They may think twice or even three times, but then they will do what they are programmed to do: give aid and comfort to America's enemies. Damn them all.

Of course, you will conveni... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Of course, you will conveniently forget this unanimous ruling next time you find it expedient to label liberal judges as "activist".

brian: "Of course, you w... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

brian: "Of course, you will conveniently forget this unanimous ruling next time you find it expedient to label liberal judges as "activist"."

Yup. Even a blind dog finds a bone once in a while.

Plus, Justice Roberts DOES have some sway...eh?

Kim don't hold your breath,... (Below threshold)
cubanbob:

Kim don't hold your breath, it's their nature they can't help themselves. As for the supreme court, don't count your chickens till they hatch. It's obvious they did not want to appear as they were interfering with the special prosecutor. Lets see what happens after the 13th before we make snap judgments. I have a feeling this matter will be coming back to the court.

My god, Kim you are such a ... (Below threshold)
John:

My god, Kim you are such a liar....

I clicked your links to read your background, and the story is NOT at all what you state. Before you know it, you'll have poor Scapiron worked up.

You state;

"Last week I posted that the New York Times ran crying to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for help in order to keep Patrick Fitzgerald from reviewing phone records that could implicate two of their reporters for tipping off Islamic charities under investigation for funding terror of FBI raids."

The New York Times article you link to says nothing of the sort. It states;

"The case arose from a Chicago grand jury's investigation into who told the two reporters, Judith Miller and Philip Shenon, about actions the government was planning to take in 2001 against two Islamic charities."

The Times reporters did NOT tip off Islamic charities. The Times reporters received information from confidential sources.

Aren't their enough serious issues to report on, without making up bogus reports based on lies? Have you no shame?

Would you care to explain this?

How do explain anything to ... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

How do explain anything to an idiot such as thee johnie (crapper)?

Piece of advice for john. ... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

Piece of advice for john. Try the NYT link from the earlier Wizbang Article Kim linked to.

John - Wouldnt it be pruden... (Below threshold)
GeminiChuck:

John - Wouldnt it be prudent to at least wait for the grand jury to decide if there is evidence of wrongdoing before claiming its "all lies"? Or perhaps you lefties dont trust grand juries ever since one wouldnt indict Karl Rove . . .

GC

So does this situation qual... (Below threshold)
Wanderlust:

So does this situation qualify as "Merry Fitzmas"?

Moonbat Judy Miller may get... (Below threshold)
Kimberly:

Moonbat Judy Miller may get her 2nd trip to prison. This time her boyfriend Scooter won't be able to help her.

Piece of advice Jpm100? Ch... (Below threshold)
John:

Piece of advice Jpm100? Check the link yourself. That's where I got the second quote.

Damn, you guys are lazy.

GeminiChuck,I'm no... (Below threshold)
jbunn:

GeminiChuck,

I'm not suggesting that the Times lost it's supreme court challenge.

Please reread my post. I'm saying that Kim Priestap's article that anchors this thread is based on a lie - That the Times reporters tiped off Islamic charities.

John, perhaps you are the l... (Below threshold)
Baggi:

John, perhaps you are the lazy one?

"It has been conclusively established that Global Relief Foundation learned of the search from reporter Philip Shenon of The New York Times," U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald wrote in an Aug. 7, 2002, letter to the Times' legal department.

Our best hope is that in th... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

Our best hope is that in the future John adopts a more unique moniker to make it easier to completely ignore his BS posts in the future.

I see someone's making a ru... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

I see someone's making a run for the most moronic poster (John).

John, EBay has a posting fo... (Below threshold)
marc:

John, EBay has a posting for Blog Monikers. Highest bid at the moment is 5 cents. (per gross)

If you hurry you can pick up a new name while this thread is still relevant and post as a "new fool" vice the old one.

Looks like the New York Sew... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

Looks like the New York Sewer is paying the price for its being americas version of PRAVDA and i hope they lose more readers over this

Let's all hope that Pinchy ... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

Let's all hope that Pinchy runs that ol' rag into the ground so fast (and he's trying really hard) that they will not be able to conduct seditious behavior much longer. The "old grey lady" is now officially a disgrace. Oh, wait a minute...thy've been a disgrace since Walter Durranty.

brian, i'm not sure why you... (Below threshold)
ke_future:

brian, i'm not sure why you think that this is an activist ruling. could you explain exactly how you come to that conclusion.

or is it only activist when the ruling is not what you want? as far as i can tell, that is your only criteria

Ke, you misread my post. No... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Ke, you misread my post. No, I don't think this is an "activist" ruling. I don't even buy into that whole "activist judge" BS.

or is it only activist when the ruling is not what you want? as far as i can tell, that is your only criteria

That was my point, directed at Kim. This thread celebrates a unanimous SCOTUS ruling. But the next time there's a ruling the right simply disagrees with, it will be cries of "activist judges!!!" all over again.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy