Redstate

By ilitigant Posted in National Security — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

When logic goes to the wind, one has to ask, who's hiding what?

Used to be, when things didn't go your way, you might take your ball and go home. Not today. Today the ACLU thinks it is proper when you lose a game to go play in a different field, and that new game somehow is going to be different than the first game, when you are playing by the same rules, with the same team and in the same game. The Rules of District Courts are the same, regardless of where you file an action, it is only the local rules that differ, and many of the FRCP's are under SCOTUS precedent. But that is ignored by the ACLU.

Note the ACLU (just Another Communist Loyalty Union) lost in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals by having the obvious pointed out to them: their plaintiffs did not have standing. That was over the alleged intercepts of private individuals' communications due to the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" the President spoke about. Now, the ACLU wants to ignore that obvious issue (if you can't show you suffered from something you do not have standing to say you are due relief from any suffering) and move straight to another court, hoping the rules change somewhere along the way.

Granted, the plaintiffs could not show qualification for standing since who was intercepted was a big ol' government secret, but the move the ACLU and others are making now, in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, is worse. In fact, it is stupid.

They are going to argue that the new FISA law (which was just signed today, and could not have a single 'victim' yet)(and the issue of 'standing' was resolved in the 6th Circuit for anything covered under the Telecom Immunity thing and SCOTUS has already ignored that appeal so its a dead issue) has caused suffering upon people: those people who made it all up before. Only this time, they are going to push standing to a place before the fact, not even fictionally after the fact as the first case was.

You see, the ACLU pretends to be representing journalists, lawyers, human rights advocates and people who get calls and make calls to people over the wide wet divide. But none of those persons can show any damage done to them by any act of eavesdropping since they can't show they were in fact, eavesdropped upon. And they still can't. So when the new action is filed it will show only one thing:

The ACLU is not only court shopping it is judge shopping across district lines, and that sets a horrible precedent. If the US District Court for the Southern District of New York falls for that, it will prove that judge shopping across district lines pays off and that the rules of civil procedure do not matter.

I predict their action will find the same fate as it did in the 6th Circuit. I also predict the Judge assigned to the case will admonish the ACLU for playing the system. But then again, I still believe in the Judiciary. For now.

http://www.countrybeforeself.com