Transcript of the Edward Snowden portion of my show this week

[JDPriestly]

103. Sorry. The job of the appellate courts is to follow the precedents set out by the

Supreme Court. Since I believe the Supreme Court is corrupt and wrong, of course I do not accept the appellate decisions.

This is DU, not a court of law. I'm basing my opinions on the history of the Revolutionary War and other American history especially the history of the Bill of Rights.

Fact is that the Bill of Rights lists a few of our innate rights. They are not given to us by the government but rather by our creator, whether a scientific force or a deity. Take your pick.

As I pointed out in my statement about the First Amendment and the Supreme Court's contradictory decisions that state on the one hand that the speech rights of corporations cannot be regulated but that the speech rights of individuals can be regulated, I just think the Supreme Court is wrong.

Do you understand my argument?

I know what the Supreme Court and appellate courts say, but can you leave that and think for yourself. Because we can only move past the current mistaken reasoning of the Supreme Court if we think for ourselves.

Repeating the errors of prior Supreme Court decisions is the job of the courts. If I were appearing in a court, I would study the case decisions, the precedents, etc. I would try to advance the law by tweaking here and there. That is how law progresses and how our country develops into a freer, more productive, better place to live. Stare decisis is the basis of our law. The courts adhere to previous decisions. But it is the lawyer's job to try to differentiate the current facts from former ones when the former facts have led to decisions that are wrong.

Prioritizing national security and executive interest over the personal privacy of Americans, of the voters is just incompatible with a free, democratic or if you prefer representative government. The two cannot coexist in the same nation.

Which do we prefer? A national security state in which we have no right to privacy or a free country in which we have democratic (meaning representative) government?

I prefer the democratic or representative government.

Just where the line should be drawn on the authority of the government, specifically the executive branch to spy on the voters, I do not know. But it should, in my opinion, be drawn so as to afford the most privacy possible. Right now our privacy is pretty much completely sacrificed to national security.

When drones equipped with infrared, night vision, see through and measure pulses, brainwaves, etc. are flying over your house, you will think back on what I'm saying. I know we don't have that technology yet. I know it sounds like science fiction. But when I was growing up in the 1950s, we thought Sputnik sounded like science fiction. Technology is changing the world at an ever faster rate. My mother rode a horse to school. Now Google is experimenting with computer-driven, steering-wheel-less cars. Technology is way ahead of the law.