Rand Paul wants to lead a Supreme Court challenge to Feds' tracking of Americans

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/09/paul-wants-to-lead-supreme-court-challenge-to-fed-tracking-americans-calls/

by jchavannes • 13 years ago

246 71 13 years ago

akiselev• 13 years ago

What does that mean, "lead a Supreme Court challenge?"

From what I understand, they'd have to file lawsuit with a lower court and fight the long long road up to the SC docket.

khuey• 13 years ago

It means he wants to be on TV/in the newspaper/etc.

aroch• 13 years ago

SCOTUS can have "original jurisdiction"[1] over some cases depending on the matter under review. In this case, because the State (read: USG) is a party in the case, SCOTUS can be the court in which a case is first argued.

_____

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedures_of_the_Supreme_Court...

_delirium4• 13 years ago

Since he's a member of the Senate, a more direct route than the judicial branch would be to pursue legislative-branch solutions, such as introducing a bill to amend the FISA statute in a more civil-liberties-friendly manner.

Vivtek2• 13 years ago

That wouldn't be in the spirit of empty grandstanding at all! You, sir, simply don't understand Ron Paul's strategy.

meepmorp• 13 years ago

Rand, not Ron.

But, yes, I believe this is probably of a piece with his drone filibuster in terms of being political theatrics.

wl2• 13 years ago

A supreme court case has benefits that legislation doesn't. If he can get a favorable decision for civil liberties, he could bind future congresses that may not be as friendly to civil liberties as he is. This also could be accomplished through a constitutional amendment, but a court case is far easier.

dnautics3• 13 years ago

for starters, Rand is proposing some legislation. A supreme court case is always non-binding to congress. They can just re-propose the law, and wait for someone to sue again (e.g. child labor laws in the 20s). Or the executive can just say, damn you supreme court we're gonna anyways (Jackson, early 19th century). And while a constitutional amendment would be nice, the only part of the constitution that the US follows anymore is 'election protocol' and details that create the pomp and circumstance around inauguration.

javert• 13 years ago

But Congress is filled with Democrats and RINOs, so that's a no-go.

Of course, the Court is filled with know-nothings (as in, they are anti-abstraction, so there is no such thing as a valid governing principle, such as a right), so it's all probably pretty pointless.

_delirium4• 13 years ago

How is being pro national security and strong police/intelligence a "RINO" position? That's a very traditional Republican position, dating back at least to the early 1950s and cold-war conservatism, and hardening in the 1960s/70s with conservatives' worries about the Vietnam protests, hippies, Black Panthers, and other groups they felt needed to be suppressed. Most Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices have tended to be pro-military and pro-police-power along those lines— Rehnquist, Burger, and Alito being three of the harder-line examples.

Perhaps you're thinking of an alternate history where the Republicans were a primarily libertarian rather than a primarily conservative party?

mtgx2• 13 years ago

I think he did that, too. But he's tried that route several times before, and the majority of the Senate voted against it. So he's probably not very optimistic about it.

adventured2• 13 years ago

He knows that a legislative branch approach will fail without making any waves what-so-ever. That's very obvious. Too many members of Congress are openly fascist in their beliefs when it comes to supporting the police state (eg Lindsey Graham and Dianne Feinstein).

The judicial branch approach is meant to spur action and interest on the part of citizens. It's meant to create waves. He's intentionally looking to bypass the legislative branch because the outcome there is already known.

grimtrigger• 13 years ago

My guess is that if he hadn't filibustered the drone program a few weeks ago, he would of used a filibuster here. Seems like he did the math, and two filibusters this close would make him look like an obstructionist.

Not blaming the man, political capital is not free.

Vivtek2• 13 years ago

Rand Paul needs a class in civics, looks like.

peterjancelis• 13 years ago

Or you need to read up about the concept of "original jurisdiction" with regards to the Supreme Court.

d4vlx3• 13 years ago

Rand Paul would probably do a lot more good by learning how to think rationally.

adventured2• 13 years ago

That's all you've got? You feel free to call a man irrational, but provide nothing to support that position. Dare I say that comes across as belligerent ad hominem.

d4vlx3• 13 years ago

From his Benghazi hearing testimony

"I'm glad that you're accepting responsibility. I think ultimately with your leaving that you accept the culpability for the worst tragedy since 9/11. And I really mean that. Had I been president and found you did not read the cables from Benghazi and from Ambassador Stevens, I would have relieved you of your post. I think it's inexcusable."

- his obsession with drastically cutting social programs at a time when so many Americans need them

- his obsession with balancing the budget when interest rates are so low and the so many things point to the problem being a lack of spending / almost nothing pointing to the deficit being a problem

- his backwards social views

I forget how easy mainstream American media goes on him. He makes some interesting points but overall he seems very much like a dogmatic and unimaginative libertarian conservative.

diminoten2• 13 years ago

Yeah this should happen, but no Rand Paul shouldn't be in front of it.

dredmorbius• 13 years ago

Politics makes strange bedfellows. I'm all for Rand Paul if he'll volunteer to ride this pony.

alipang• 13 years ago

Why not? Like him or not, this is definitely in line with the libertarian position.

diminoten2• 13 years ago

Because he'll make concessions and strategy choices which are not in line with what I want.

bpatrianakos• 13 years ago

What amazes me is the hypocrisy in all this. The American people have basically known about this since about 2006. It's just that there wasn't as much proof or specifics but the media covered this and it was pretty much common knowledge that all phone calls and Internet activity were being watched. Of course that's not okay and I still get the current outrage. Totally understandable.

But then there are the senators... These guys approved this activity long ago and while not all of them knew the specifics the Intelligence Committe did. They were taken into meetings where no note taking tools or anything with a battery was allowed and briefed about this.

Now that this story breaks the senate gets their panties in a twist like this is news to them. They simultaneously defend it and condemn it.

It isn't fair to make such a blanket statement about the entire Senate, I know but what I'm really getting at here is that what Rand Paul is doing doesn't strike me as sincere at all. It looks like a dog and pony show set up to make it look like someone gives a shit while they all keep getting briefed and voting for this stuff behind closed doors.

It's like set up a bunch of PR stunts to make us feel warm and funny then do the opposite while no one is paying attention. On this issue I feel like its the guys trying to get attention the most who can be trusted the least.

gwright• 13 years ago

Hypocrisy? I'm not so sure.

It is really difficult to get a single person to change their mind about something. Even more difficult to get large groups to change their collective opinion.

Theoretical concerns about how a program might be abused are much less convincing to people than actual abuses. It isn't surprising to me that people who discounted the possiblity of abuse in the past might now think differently about it (politicians and public citizens alike) when presented with actual overreach or even abuse.

I don't think that is an example of hypocrisy though.

shardling2• 13 years ago

To be fair to Paul, this is his first term -- he's been in the Senate for a bit longer than 2 years now. So he certainly wasn't involved in decisions made "long ago".

That said, I generally disagree with many of his stances, and think you're probably right that a lot of what he does is fundamentally political.

jmaygarden• 13 years ago

I don't understand why people accuse politicians of using politics. Isn't that like accusing a farmer of plowing a field?

shpxnvz• 13 years ago

While this is undoubtedly true for some senators, Paul seems like quite a poor choice of target for this criticism.

He has been very vocal in opposition of governmental encroachment on civil liberties during his senate term. He was, in fact, the last senator left in opposition to the extension of the Patriot Act.

otsuichi3• 13 years ago

Not to mention that he was only elected in 2010, well after a lot of this stuff had been implemented and reauthorized time and time again.

hellcow2• 13 years ago

But to be fair—regardless of the reasons behind it—Paul endorsed Romney for president, who promised to contribute to expanding our spy state like Obama and his High Command.

I find it hard to imagine his father agreeing to do such a thing for any price.

mitchi• 13 years ago

Rand Paul may have its faults. Many people like libertarianism but they don't like the pro-religion/prolife and pro-rich aspects that come with it. That's why Bill Maher has distanced himself recently from the libertarian appelation. However to say that it's not sincere coming from Rand Paul is not fair at all. If you know a little bit about who he is, who his father is, you couldn't say that... Of course Rand Paul is building a political portfolio for 2016. The filibuster, the TSA, the balanced budgets and now this, it's all going into it. But all these political actions are in line with who he is and what he represents. And still, after all that there's a very big chance he'll lose to a generic republican like Rubio or Ryan in the primaries.

newbie122• 13 years ago

Your speculation about the GOP primaries is mis-informed. In 2010, Rand was an insurgent "tea party" republican, as was Rubio -- both men were officially opposed by the party in their primaries and defeated the "generic" GOP candidate. In both the GOP and Democrat parties, generic candidates often struggle in primaries if there is a non-crazy candidate who can appeal to the base. Rand has a safe path back to the GOP nomination -- his biggest risk is doing too much "national" work and losing to an establishment Democrat in battleground Kentucky.

wallawe• 13 years ago

Pro-religion, pro-life and pro-rich? This is the kind of misinformation that gives it a bad name. Libertarianism is all about personal choice and "liberty" hence the name. The point is not to tell you whether or not you should be pro-life or pro-religion but to let you decide for yourself.

rdl• 13 years ago

Libertarianism in general isn't particularly pro-religion or anti-abortion. (except in that it supports general 1A, but a lot of atheists are libertarians). I think the Paul family's anti-abortion stance is their own (and, it was always kind of understandable for Ron Paul, as an Ob/Gyn, to have a strong opinion one way or the other on the issue)

mtgx2• 13 years ago

Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. At all.

Rand Paul was one of the very few, along with Ron Wyden and Udall, to try and stop the FISA Amendments Act from being renewed last year. They voted against them (and for FISA renewal) 92-7.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIyLlXBcbjo

So HE HASN'T CHANGED HIS MIND ABOUT ANYTHING. This is how he was thinking all along. It's the others that supported the spying.

DanielBMarkham• 13 years ago

Whoa horsey. Slow down a bit. I'm as pissed as you are, but you're spreading too wide of a net.

Yes, Congress has oversight authority over all of this, but in practice what they've done is assign huge powers to agencies and then just hold PR committee meetings every now and then when they think they can get votes.

As far as I know, the only legislators fully briefed on all of this were the majority/minority leaders. Perhaps the chairmen of the intelligence committees. Perhaps not. Definitely not the entire committee, and definitely not every senator who can appear in front of a microphone.

The real problem here is that Congress has abdicated its power over to agencies ran by the president. This is true in many areas. If things screw up, they can have hearings and look like heroes. If things go well, they can either ignore them or make hay. In either case, nobody really cares what the agencies are doing. It's impossible. There simply too much detail for the legislature to manage. So the rule is: never do anything that will make you appear on TV. This is what the NSA violated.

I'd just be careful you don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Congress has the power, and could use it, to straighten this entire thing out. It's not just all PR stunts. Or how about putting it this way: yes, it's PR stunts, but with enough attention on these stunts, maybe the rest of them will grow the balls necessary to actually do their jobs.

This is a good sign. I hope we see many more "PR stunts" like it.

JamisonM• 13 years ago

I don't know if the real problem is that Congress has abdicated its power. I think the real, real problem is that many of the sensible people in congress realize they have many colleagues who are either excessively partisan or incompetent. They realize that delegation to within the agencies or executive branch means the fewer of such folks with access to information that they might feel tempted to leak for personal or political gain or just because of raw stupidity.

bilbo0s• 13 years ago

If what you say is true...

These Congresspeople should be removed from office. They are obviously not doing their jobs. That's the one thing McCain said this morning that was correct. Congresspeople were informed... and are now feigning righteous indignation. He pointed out that there was only one vote against the Patriot Act... and that member is no longer in office.

aetch• 13 years ago

Agreed, Rand Paul has had access to this information for years. He's just playing on people's emotions to get more support now that it's all public.

jlgreco• 13 years ago

"Years".. as in just over two of them?

mason55• 13 years ago

The American people have basically known about this since about 2006

2006?

Try 1997

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_(software) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON_system

snogglethorpe• 13 years ago

... and anybody with any sense could guess they've been doing this for far longer. The NSA doesn't go around shouting it from the rooftops, but they've never tried particularly hard to hide that they're doing this sort of thing.

Note the copyright date on this file from the Emacs distribution:

http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git/tree/lisp/play/sp...

The most surprising thing about the current episode is simply that everybody's acting so shocked. Seriously people?

natmaster• 13 years ago

Senators are not one person, which I suppose is why you're getting confused as to the contradiction. There are those like Obama who were for things like this, and those like Rand Paul who are against.

mpyne• 13 years ago

It looks like a dog and pony show set up to make it look like someone gives a shit while they all keep getting briefed and voting for this stuff behind closed doors.

And also, this is yet another instance of where a politician has decided that only Americans have rights. At least mention a framework (reciprocity, normalized relations, something) under which surveillance of non-Americans would be allowed instead of making it a binary "You're either one of us or one of them!"

suredo3• 13 years ago

so what's the hypocrisy again?

thaumasiotes• 13 years ago

What do you find preferable?

In scenario A, a group of senators learn of a widespread domestic surveillance program. They all think it's a good idea, or at least a good enough idea that there's no reason to protest, gum up the works, or raise an alarm. When the program is accidentally disclosed to the public, they all greet widespread popular outrage with the message "we've considered this, and we want to keep it going".

In scenario B, a group of senators learn of a widespread domestic surveillance program. They all think it's a good idea, or at least a good enough idea that there's no reason to protest, gum up the works, or raise an alarm. When the program is accidentally disclosed to the public, they all respond to widespread popular outrage by sounding even more outraged than the public. There is much senatorial roaring and gnashing of teeth. Investigations are opened. All this despite the fact that the senators don't really see what the big deal is.

The highest function of an American politician is to reflect the views of the public. When the facts change, their minds must not change; that would betray the base. But when public sentiment changes (if, for example, the public were to come into possession of information that was new to it), their minds change with it.

suredo3• 13 years ago

Do I need a warrant to get Obama's data for my data analysis project?

suredo3• 13 years ago

I heard my neighbor making bomb threats against the goverment (not me, my neighbor) although I am mad at my government..

ipsin• 13 years ago

I was surprised by Rand Paul's proposed bill "To stop the [NSA] from spying on citizens of the United States":

http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/EAS13699.pdf

The effective body is fairly direct: "The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution shall not be construed to allow any agency of the United States Government to search the phone records of Americans without a warrant based on probable cause."

What really surprised me was that it used the word "search", rather than, say, "collect". Given that we don't know what happened to the records gathered under Stellar Wind/RAGTIME, it's possible that the activity would still be legal under Paul's bill.

I'm curious whether this choice of wording was intentional or accidental.

jroseattle• 13 years ago

My wife is a former lobbyist. The wording is always intentional.

jmadsen• 13 years ago

The interesting side story behind all of this, that HN isn't looking at at all, is the "bi-partisanship as usual" reaction from outside Washington.

A reason something might come of this? Ironically, it is because the Rush Limbaugh crowd look at it as a way to get Obama, et al, while liberals are equally aghast. Never mind that it was all spearheaded by a Republican administration.

Now, as for me, I vote Green & don't like any of 'em - but it's nice to see everyone looking like they might agree on something for once.

Rand Paul wants to lead a Supreme Court challenge to Feds' tracking of Americans

Related Stories