Sen Schumer Introduces bill to put Domestic Spying On Fast Track to SCOTUS

[kpete]

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) introduced a bill yesterday that would put lawsuits challenging the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance program on a fast track to the Supreme Court.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/30/thinkfast-march-30-2006/

Bill Would Speed Challenge to Surveillance
By THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: March 30, 2006

WASHINGTON, March 29 — Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, introduced a bill Wednesday that would put lawsuits challenging the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program on a fast track to the Supreme Court.

With Congress and the Bush administration at odds over the legality of eavesdropping on Americans without court warrants, the legislation could produce a timely ruling by the court on the program's constitutionality, Mr. Schumer said.

"We have a system of checks and balances," he said, "and, in this case, when the stakes are so high, the Supreme Court should be the ultimate check."

The bill would permit lawsuits by scholars, journalists and others who assert that they have refrained from calls or e-mail messages to Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries because of "a reasonable fear" of N.S.A. eavesdropping.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/30/politics/30nsa.html

Such suits would be heard by a panel of three federal judges, whose decision could be appealed immediately to the Supreme Court.

[rodeodance]

1. k and n

[rodeodance]

2. Feingold's statement on Schumer's proposed legislation

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2542565

Thu Mar-30-06 07:51 AM
Original message
Feingold's statement on Schumer's proposed legislation re Bush wiretapping

http://www.feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/...

Statement of Senator Russ Feingold
On Senator Schumer’s Proposed Legislation Regarding the President’s Warrantless Wiretapping Program

March 29, 2006

"I applaud Senator Schumer’s desire to get this issue to the Supreme Court as soon as possible. I am pleased that my colleagues are thinking about ways to address the President's illegal conduct. But while I look forward to reviewing the Schumer proposal, Congress itself should not delay in holding the President accountable for his illegal actions."

[seabeyond]

3. bummer so many dissed schumer, just out of past dislike, when

what he does is a good thing. yea....for schumer, and for us. now lets see what schumer has to say

media and others keep saying dems dont care about this issue, as i see dems try different approaches all over and from beginning of this becoming public. they have yet to walk away from issue. sure would like to see the support of the dems on this board, instead of dissing and backing the lazy corrupt media and repugs

read a thread early this morning of total bashing of schumer for this

[jsamuel]

14. just for the record, i haven't said anything bad about schumer, but...

I have to get this off my chest.

First, this right here is what I expect him to do. It is a good, liberal, Democratic thing to do.

However, his efforts to "manage" the Democratic ticket single-handedly with bad political thinking has started me to worry about him. I have not made up my mind yet, but he is scaring me a little.

[seabeyond]

15. i am not arguing either schumer approach or feingold

i am not battling schumer. i hear what you say on his interference with primaries, i assume that is what you are talking. even that i am not battling.

but, to listen to dems bash schumer in this action.....

well, made no sense. that was my only point. bash first and then maybe read article or not ever read so the bashing can continue.

i dont care if ny re elects schumer or not, as long as a dem gets in. i dont see schumer as a "bad" guy though i know he doesnt do EVERYTHING that a lot of the people on this board wants him to do. i personally dont look for an elected official to satisfy me 100%, i dont think it is possible, ergo i think the expectation is unrealistic

but just continued bashing when facts state otherwise, as we declare ourselves democrats, is a waste of time, counter productive and damaging, in my view.

really my post was about an earlier thread on this that was just out there

[jsamuel]

17. thats fine, I just have been thinking about schumer recently and how he

has been concerning me...

"when the left pushes, we push back" - schumer

[rucky]

20. bummer Shumer felt the need to diss Feingold

He could've introduced this without (publicly) mentioning the censure.

[seabeyond]

21. link please. exact quote please. one person diss, could be anothers

disagreeing. i would like to judge myself instead of taking your word for it that schumer dissed feingold. especially since so many people would like to just attack schumer, hence these posts of mine.

[rucky]

24. I was going off of this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2540923

[seabeyond]

25. thanks rucky. but this is what i was talking about.

"he dissed Senator Feingold's Resolution to Censure as a "small minority" -(fucking bastard)implying Feingold is of on fringe - (read lunatic) .. "

small minority seem to be schumers actual words. and that is a statement of truth. there is a small minority supporting censure. how he said it, what he said before, and what he said after isnt there for me to judge on my own. it is only the opinion of another, deciding what schumer was actually saying, without schumer actually saying, that has me bothered.

off this amount of info i can see how you would draw that schumer dissed feingold, after all the poster said so. but i dont know that to be a truth, and i know there are dems that are attack for things they say, here on this board..... when reality is they, never said it

so to be fair, i would have to see exactly what schumer said to decide that he dissed feingold. but yes, this is the link to the thread, that had me posting on this thread.

[rucky]

26. OP is usually reliable

but I did do some checking and couldn't find the exact wording.

:shrug:

[JDPriestly]

4. Anyone who thinks they are or might be eavesdropped on

should be able to sue. That would put a stop to the NSA effort. Let's say you import carpets from Afghanistan and you regularly call a supplier there. You don't want someone listening in to your bartering with your supplier or discussing your competition with your supplier, you go to court to prevent NSA from listening to your calls. Fair enough, I think.

[rodeodance]

5. In the meantime-ask Cspan to cover hearing tomorrow: [e-mail]

Suggest Events: Submit a public event that you think C-SPAN should cover
- [e-mail]


Friday, Mar. 31, 2006
9:30 a.m. Judiciary
To hold hearings to examine the call to censure
the President.
SD-226

[HereSince1628]

6. I'm all for allowing people to bring suit, but to bring a suit

because someone felt intimidated?

The criteria as to what must be demonstrated to allow a suit standing will be interesting.

How does one establish the reality of a loss because she really didn't do something she would have done had she not been intimidated by a spying program that was a secret and unknown to her at the time she didn't do what she didn't do?

I have to say I don't understand this at all.

[The Stranger]

7. A loss of your most basic and fundamental human and Constitutional rights

should be enough. Any intrusion by the government should be enjoined.

[HereSince1628]

10. My question remains, how does one prove you experienced a loss

whether it's about fundamental human rights or Constitutional rights because that person felt intimidated by a spying program that was secret and unknown to her at the time she didn't do something because of the intimidation of a secret and thus unknowable spying program?

Somehow you can only allow into court cases that meet some criteria

Any cases would seem to have to be about a loss experienced since just before Christmas of 2005 when the program was revealled. That seems to me a temporal standard . A person could be intimidated by a spying program she could have learned did exist.

Even so, how do you establish that a non-action resulted from intimidation rather than for some other reason? Seems to me it must at least show a change in an established pattern of behavior immediately upon learning of the spying program.
But there might be other criteria as well.

In any case the number of potential complaints seems to quickly go from every American to a rather very very small number. Which begs the question how useful is this legislation really going to be?

[The Stranger]

11. Your question remains answered.

If the government is violating citizens' rights, there is no need to show monetary damages. Or how it has impacted your behavior, etc.

Your rights are violated -- you get an injunction.

[HereSince1628]

12. Clearly we are talking past each other.

I'm asking nothing about money.

I am talking about the criteria that must be met to be granted standing to bring a suit into court date as well as the criteria that must be used to establish that the loss actually took place.

Schumer is proposing legislation that allows lawsuits to be brought forward, won't the complaintants have to meet standards to be allowed standing? Won't the law need to establish criteria for burden of proof etc?

[The Stranger]

13. Ah, standing.

Now that is a good question. And one the Bush people I am sure have already examined and developed a strategy.

[Fovea]

22. consider

that warrant-less surveillance is so essentially antithetical to the constitution that its presence constitutes a measurable harm on virtually all citizens.

THis is not just a problem in the case of international traffic. A person would have to be a fool to believe that they limited themselves to that scope once they decided to violate the FISA mechanism. FISA is a disgracefully lax broker, IMO, so imagine what requests got finally turned down? The words 'Daniel Ellsberg' came to mind.

So when you talk to your spouse about Iraq, who's to say they aren't listening?

I say everyone in the US who uses a communication device should enter into a class action suit. What is freedom worth?

[KurtNYC]

23. and what about "insider info" and stock trades

Scenario: agents listen to business calls, gain information which they can use to profit in the stock market, they trade on it and no one is the wiser.

[stop the bleeding]

8. Bring em on!!!!

Kick

[earthside]

9. I'm a Cynic

Sorry, but here's my first impression.

This bill gives Senators the excuse to delay considering censure because what if the Supreme Court says what Bush did is legal?

Or, if the Supreme Court quickly rules in favor of Bush ... then the cowering Democrats, like Schumer, are off the hook on Feingold's censure resolution.

[Zimmy44]

16. What about fact-gathering?

It's in the lower courts that fact-gathering goes on - I'd rather the plaintiffs were allowed to demand and receive documentation, do depositions, etc. If it goes straight to the SC on just the legal issue, we'll never have an opportunity to get that info.

[cascadiance]

18. What good will that do with "State Secrets" privilege being heavily used

They've already decided not to hear two such cases already for this "without comment" since November of last year (Sibel Edmonds and Jeffry Sterling's appeals). I'm guessing they'd do the same thing to Russell Tice if and when he might have an appeal to SCOTUS.

Schumer, just support Feingold's censure resolution! That would show more consistent effort from the Dems to try and work together to bring this presidency down. It almost seems like Schumer's move is more grandstanding here that others have accused Feingold as having done.

[highnooner]

19. Good idea.

We need to hurry up before another good justice bites the dust. Right now, I believe that a 5-4 decision against it is probable.

[iconoclastNYC]

27. Schumer is a big dissapointment

I think Censure is a better way to go. And then impeachment once we have the votes.