Not a bad choice for the SCOTUS if there's a vacancy between now and next year, huh?

Alert Drudge! Alert Coulter! Jayson Javitz wishes for the death of SCOTUS justices!

They don't understand the nature of datamining. We need new rules.

But posters like Mark fill no needs.
=======

Uh, Mark... Supreme Court openings can also occur when a sitting Justice voluntarily retires, ya know.

C-C-G, giving Mark a fact is like giving my dog an iPod. I love my dog (and of course we love all our trolls) but the iPod would be wasted on my puppy as much as a fact is wasted on Mark!

The ruling held that the plaintiffs did not have standing or the legal right to sue. It did not decide the merits of the lawsuit challenging the program as illegal and unconstitutional.

Now all we have to do is find someone who was spied on. Oh wait Bush won't tell us who they are. How convenient. I am sure President Hillary Clinton will use this power wisely!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070706/ts_nm/bush_eavesdropping_dc_2

Hillary appears to still have all the FBI files she needs.

The text of the decision:

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0253p-06.pdf

This passage sums up Mark's point:

Evidence arguably protected by the state secrets privilege may well be relevant to the reasonableness of the plaintiffs' fear. Whether that evidence is favorable to plaintiffs or defendants, its unavailability requires dismissal. That it may be unsatisfying that facts
pertinent to the standing inquiry are unavailable can have no bearing on the disposition of this case. If the state secrets privilege prevents the plaintiffs from presenting adequate evidence of their standing, we must dismiss their claims. If the state secrets privilege prevents the government from presenting evidence that might refute the plaintiffs' allegations that they are likely to be surveilled and undercut the reasonableness of their asserted fear, we must also dismiss the plaintiffs' claims.

Actually, I thought this summed up Mark's point

Uh, Mark... Supreme Court openings can also occur when a sitting Justice voluntarily retires, ya know.

Oh yah, I'm sure that's what he meant. Cause you know with the election so close those libruls and modrits probably won't want to put off playing golf any longer, and would rather voluntarily give Bush another slot to fill. Yah, I'm sure he meant that.

Yes, and those people have standing, jpm 100. They also have active fear.

Well, Mark, I guess you do fill a need, such as it is; but, you do understand, don't you, that you yield willingly to your merchants so they may rob you what you refuse to your soldiers to defend you. The nature of data acquisition in datamining makes the rules about warrants inapplicable. Bush himself couldn't tell you who is targetted until one is identified.

Why the willful ignorance on the left re: datamining? Be grateful this administration hasn't used it on its enemies.
====================================

I am sure President Hillary Clinton will use this power wisely!

Just like she used those FBI files she collected?

Good one, here's you... http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/IST/IST169/PO1802.JPG

Thank God that 2 of 3 Justices were sane!

The lawsuit was claiming that these morons were intimidated in their exercise of free speech because they thought they MIGHT be spied on!

Wow!

Kinda like being afraid of heights, and thus filing a lawsuit against a ladder manufacturer because they make things that take you to HIGH PLACES!!

Oh good, one court says the program is illegal, another court says it can't make that determination, and Kim concludes that means that warrants are inapplicable! Hooray for making stuff up!

Mark, if you had a brain you might be dangerous.

Go ring for the nurse and tell her you're done with the computer so she can take you back to your nice room with the rubber wallpaper.

OK, Mark, recess is over. You now have to join all the other children for nap-time. Go get your teddy bear like a good little boy.

If you recall, even some of the liberal commentators thought the trial judge's opinion was crap.

Democrats don't make good judges--they don't want the facts and the law to trump their "conscience," however flawed it is.

Whats new, the coruption in this administration and its appointees is absolutely discusting.

Beach Homes For Sale Nationwide:

htt://www.Gobeachhomes.com

Someone wanna edit out Robert's spam?

Interesting that the spammer also posts a lefty screed, hmmm?

Wow, you know you're right when the wingnutz come out in full force with personal and ad hominem attacks. I must have hit a nerve!

What would you be "right" about, Mark? You haven't made a single substantive statement yet.

In point of fact, your first post was an attack against the author.

Give us a substantive point to discuss, and we can discuss it. If all you're interested in is lefty bomb-throwing, well, don't be surprised if we throw bombs back.

Ya Mark , say something intelligent or well thought out if possible but from the looks of your posts you seem to lean on the side of being a bomb magnet. Incoming!

Bumb magnet, that Mark.

*Waiting for Markie to get up to speed*..OOPS!.. in 5th gear and redlined already!.. nevermind

I bet Mark is over at DU right now bragging about his exploits here.

I bet Mark is over at DU right now bragging about his exploits here.

What's DU? Is that a university for the mentally challenged? Are there papers to fill out to get credentialed?

DU = Democratic Underground.

Wear your hazmat suit if you decide to venture in.

this may not be relevant to this thread. But this is kind of law and order we will see from a Hillary Clinton adm.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/07/msm_disgraces_itself_again.html
The media coverage of the news that the mayor of Los Angeles and co-chair of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign has been sleeping with a reporter is almost as disgraceful as Anthony Villaraigosa's behavior itself.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42300
Hillary's finance chief
indicted for L.A. gala
David Rosen faces 20 years for filing
fictitious reports on Hollywood soiree

David Rosen faces 20 years for filing
fictitious reports on Hollywood soiree

Former Clinton aide acquitted in fundraising case

Mark, only a liberal would say conservatives talking on a conservative blog site is a sign that a liberal hit a nerve. Wow! Hit the nurse call button, your meds are due. ww

Hey, don't blame me. You're all the ones who are more interested in attacking me than discussing the finding. That nerve I hit must be making your eyes twitch! Keep sputtering while you lose America!

Hillary's finance chief indicted for L.A. gala David Rosen faces 20 years for filing fictitious reports on Hollywood soiree

And through that whole affair, somehow Hillary has managed to evade scrutiny, even though there is clear evidence available that she was totally aware of the whole thing.

The media coverage of the news that the mayor of Los Angeles and co-chair of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign has been sleeping with a reporter is almost as disgraceful as Anthony Villaraigosa's behavior itself.

This story is so funny, and so typical of the lefty media. Also, the reporter is a star f'er. Before Mayor Reconquista she was involved with CA Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez.

Just gotta wonder how impartial she's going to be in reporting when she's sleeping with someone in the political scene she covers.

Last I heard, she's been suspended. I guess Telemundo is doing an investigation into something they knew about a year ago.

Mark, wake up. They are not attacking you, They are attacking your supidity in hope you'll finish kindergarden and become a grownup. Some on the bench are judges, others just fill a robe. Left wing law schools have turned out enough brainless dolts and all of the non-judges we need to fill the robes.

I hope all of the left wingers like Mark keep seeing their Islamic terrorists doctors which will reduce they're (left wing) number in short order.

Should Hillary be put under oath? Anyone knows more about this case?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/6/20/82937.shtml

Hillary Clinton Tape Reveals 'Felony': Claim
A videotape shows New York Sen. Hillary Clinton committing felonies and should be admitted as new evidence in a California civil case, a forthcoming legal brief to be filed by Friday argues.

Hillary Clinton Tape Reveals 'Felony': Claim A videotape shows New York Sen. Hillary...

LoveAmerica, saw that clip last week. It sure sounds to me like her voice on the speaker phone.

In one of the earliest court proceedings in this case, the judge declared that this was not about Senator Clinton, and wouldn't be turned into a political venue.

Back on topic:

The greatest satisfaction I have is that the ACLU and its donors wasted all that money only to end up where we are today, including vacating the origianl ruling that the surveillance violated the law. BWAHAHAHAHA!

Mark, concluding that warrants, as ordinarily conceived, are inapplicable in datamining comes from the nature of datamining, not from the completely phony ass syllogism you made up and attributed to me. I remind you that you are willfully ignorant of datamining. And of logic and rhetoric.
==========================

The technology of datamining requires that the polity engage in a dialogue and entertain and adopt new rules with respect to privacy and government. This cannot be done in an atmosphere of demagoguery, and the Democrats have Casey Jonesed this matter to their peril.
=================================

I remind you that you are willfully ignorant of datamining. And of logic and rhetoric.

The leftymedia tells Mark that this is bad, therefore he takes them at their word for it and decides that this is bad.

He has no concept of thinking for himself.

That's why he's a perfect Democrat voter.

those FBI files she collected?

A serious problem, that. It hasn't been discussed for a long time but don't forget they were perusing raw data on hundreds of people before they returned them. Anyone seen Craig Livingstone lately?

Anyone seen Craig Livingstone lately?

I'll check Fort Marcy Park on my way home tonight, Hugh.

HughS, the undercurrent of fear among the very powerful is that she still has them, and no one knows what she has. She faces trickle down paranoia; the most toxic sort.
=========================

Kim
Of course she has them. But if she uses them she will be painting a mosaic that, if even remotely suspect, will find her in quick trouble. There is an extensive discovery process already on the record.
I think the information in those files is essentially radioactive....to the one holding them.

Mark:

Hey, don't blame me. You're all the ones who are more interested in attacking me than discussing the finding.

You should expect better when your first comment and first on the post is this fantasmagoricle trash?

Alert Drudge! Alert Coulter! Jayson Javitz wishes for the death of SCOTUS justices!

Maybe, just maybe if you take offense at being "attacked" you shouldn't assign your fantasies to someone else's thought process. Then you wouldn't be such a large, dare I say ignorant, target.

ON another note... anyone notice how quick many if not all media reports id'd the judges as republican appointees?

On the other hand when U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor first issued her idiotic ruling CNN, for example, only noted Taylor was a "Federal judge".

Funny the difference in coverage when the ruling is reversed in favor of Bush.

Funny, too, that none of the leftists who were crying illegal and throwing Taylor in my face within recent memory are here to go over old, forgotten, far-off things, and battles long ago.
================================

Yeah, and the only one willing to demonstrate the depravity of his brainwashing remains willfully ignorant, and abusive. At least he showed up. We should be thankful for small favors.

That's the deal, folks. All that Sturm und Drang, and giving away of critical secrets by the traitor Jay Rockefeller, and they can't even find a victim.

Not one. Historians are going to be beside themselves.
============

And it's an open secret that there are still tortured victims of the Clintons. That's why they'll not be President again. Marc, you mention 'radioactive' and I say 'toxic'. These two are poisonous, and we know, even though we're charmed.
===========================

Uh, you Hugh, with the hot stuff.
=================

The Hot Potatoe. Or, together, maybe the Hot Potentatoes.
============

That's good news for those of us who want to get rid of those pesky "unalienable rights."

P, I'm just not sticking my head in the sand. Your merchants invade your privacy with more evil intent than this government does.
=========================

Mark, concluding that warrants, as ordinarily conceived, are inapplicable in datamining comes from the nature of datamining

Oh I missed that datamining exception in the constitution.

The leftymedia tells Mark that this is bad

I don't need the media telling me this is bad (and by the way, they aren't). All it takes is an understanding of the principles of this country and an ability not to chuck it all away just cause Bush says "9/11!" over and over. (Hint: the founding principle of the country is not "anything to not get blown up!")

ON another note... anyone notice how quick many if not all media reports id'd the judges as republican appointees?

Oh you mean like Jayson Javitz did in this very post?!

Funny, too, that none of the leftists who were crying illegal and throwing Taylor in my face within recent memory are here to go over old, forgotten, far-off things, and battles long ago.

That's cause there's nothing to rehash. The appeals court didn't say that Taylor's ruling wasn't sound legal reasoning, just that she should not have rendered it. Don't you understand the difference?

Let's now hear from the people who claim that something that cannot be proclaimed illegal due to procedure must therefore be legal on its merits.

Mark, you just are not very bright. There is no "search" in datamining because datamining refers to collating information that is already available in databases. That's why the Fourth Amendment does not apply, the information is already held by the government or a third party.

So once again, you look like an ignorant BDS sufferer. What a coincidence.

I know what datamining is, likely better than you. Just because the information is "available" in private databases doesn't mean the gov't is entitled to it. ALL information is held by a third party, genius. Defining something as datamining instead of snooping doesn't make it legal.

No, Mark, you don't know what datamining is, certainly not "better" than I. You've continued to demonstrate that. And defining something as "snooping" does not make it illegal.

Your BDS is making you look very silly.

Robin, ever feel like you're banging your head against a brick wall?

Yes, David, a really dense brick in fact.

Well this dense brick knows far more about datamining that you do. I have to provide a privacy statement to explain to my customers how their data is mined and how they can opt out. But that fact is not relevant simply because Kim says so. The gov't never made that argument. And I didn't say "defining something as "snooping" makes it illegal" so if that's your strawman to shoot me down then you have a very hollow argument indeed.

Perhaps you need to stop banging your head against your wall and allow your brain to heal. Then you can think for yourself. And just remember that three federal judges have either ruled or said they would have ruled that the program was illegal. Zero have said they would have ruled the program legal. Throwing the case out because of standing is an unfortunate but legitimate aspect of our legal system, but make no mistake about the underlying findings.

Just remember that you support a position that the gov't can do something that is completely shielded from judicial review just by saying it's "secret". Even if you don't think this current program is too bad, you are an idiot if you support that position. It used to be that the people had privacy and gov't was required to be open. Now its the other way around and you think it's just OK. If Bush and you are so confident that the program is legal, then have a judge rule that way and put us all in our place why don't you!?

Having to provide a privacy statement still has no relation to the Fourth Amendment, Mark, so you still don't have a clue what you are talking about.

If you don't understand how the snooping comment is the corollary to your own statements, I suggest you think harder about what you write before hitting submit.

Oh, and Mark, you need to quit reading Greenwald because he does not know what he is talking about regarding the merits of the case, as Patterico explains here. The majority did reach an opinion on the merits for the purposes of deciding standing.

Oh yah, you say with such certainty that Greenwald doesn't know what he's talking about and the majority ruled on the merits. Cause what do you use to support that? Some guy who says "I am no expert in this area, so everything I say in this post is necessarily tentative and offered for purposes of discussion."

Oh, case closed!

And since you keep ignoring the points and keep yammering about stuff no one said (like a privacy statement is related to the 4th amendment... who the hell said that?!?!) there's no point in talking to you.

Oh yah and he adds at the end "keep in mind that I may be wrong, and that my opinions are offered for the purposes of starting a discussion, and seeking commentary from people with more expertise on the issue."

Hmmm, Greenwald was a constitutional lawyer for 10 years... think he has more expertise on the issue?

And your patterico guy concedes this at the end, "I will add that, whether or not the decision is proper as a legal matter, there is something a bit Kafkaesque about the notion that nobody can challenge the program's allegedly illegal nature because it's a secret." Which is exactly what I said above, so you're tying yourself to someone who agrees with me! You must be banging your head against that brick wall so much you don't even realize that. Just from now on bang in silence cause you don't know what you're talking about.

Mark, which sock puppet was a constitutional lawyer again? Basically, Greenwald can't even read the decision competently, his comments are incoherent when one actually compares them to the opinion in question. If he was a constitutional lawyer - which I doubt given his past inability to tell the truth - he wasn't a competent one. Patterico actually has a license to practice law, and no sock puppets.