Chris Christie says 'I didn’t support Sonia Sotomayor' -- but he did 15JAN16

Chris Christie sparred with Marco Rubio during the Republican debate in South Carolina Jan. 14, 2016. (AFP/Getty Images)
 
GOV chris christie r NJ continues to expose himself as a liar, this time with his denial of supporting the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. The lie is mind boggling because christie had the opportunity to appeal to Hispanic voters with his support of Sotomayor's nomination, but he chose instead to pander to the right wing fascist in the the repiglican party, the white is right crowd. This from +PolitiFact .....

"I didn’t support Sonia Sotomayor."    

— Chris Christie on Friday, January 15th, 2016 in a Republican debate on Fox Business Network in South Carolina on Fox Business Network

Chris Christie says 'I didn’t support Sonia Sotomayor' -- but he did

By Amy Sherman on Friday, January 15th, 2016 at 12:15 a.m.

Marco Rubio tried to cast fellow GOP presidential candidate Chris Christie as a liberal on many topics, including the appointment of Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor.
During the South Carolina debate Jan. 14, Rubio said that Christie endorsed many of the ideas that President Barack Obama supports, "whether it is Common Core, or gun control, or the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor, or the donation he made to Planned Parenthood."
Christie shot back, "Let’s get the facts straight. First of all, I didn’t support Sonia Sotomayor." He then continued to dispute the rest of Rubio’s statement.
We decided to focus on the part about the Supreme Court justice.
Who is right? Did Christie support Sotomayor or not?
Sotomayor
Sotomayor, a U.S. Court of Appeals judge, was Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee and the country’s first Hispanic justice. She was confirmed by the Senate on Aug. 6, 2009, in a 68-31 vote.
The Rubio campaign did not respond to our inquiry about the claim, but we tracked down some of Christie’s statements through his campaign and news coverage.
In 2009, Christie was running for governor in New Jersey, so he didn’t get to vote on her appointment or play any role in her vetting by the Senate. But he did make a series of statements about her in 2009 that a Christie campaign spokeswoman sent to us. It’s not surprising that Christie -- a former federal prosecutor -- was asked to weigh in about a Supreme Court candidate who was from New York and went to college at Princeton in New Jersey.
In a radio debate May 27, 2009, Christie was asked: "Would you have appointed her or even considered her for a top appointment to the bench?"
Christie responded, "She wouldn’t have been my choice, no." When asked to elaborate, Christie said, "Well, no, I mean listen, that’s the question. She wouldn’t have been my choice. Absolutely not. Not my kind of judge. "
But two months later, he made comments that showed some support for her confirmation -- although he again said that Sotomayor would not have been his choice.
"After watching and listening to Judge Sotomayor's performance at the confirmation hearings this week, I am confident that she is qualified for the position of associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court," said Christie, a former federal prosecutor, according to Politicker New Jersey. "Elections have consequences. One of those consequences are judicial appointments. While Judge Sotomayor would not have been my choice, President Obama has used his opportunity to fill a seat on the Supreme Court by choosing a nominee who has more than proven her capability, competence and ability."
He continued: "I support her appointment to the Supreme Court and urge the Senate to keep politics out of the process and confirm her nomination. Qualified appointees should be confirmed and deserve bipartisan support. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito deserved that support based on their work as Circuit Court Judges. So does Judge Sotomayor. As a result, I support her confirmation. This is a historic moment and her inspiring success story should not only make the Latino community proud, but all Americans."
Our ruling
Christie said, "I didn’t support Sonia Sotomayor."
When Sotomayor was nominated by Obama, Christie said in May 2009,  "She wouldn’t have been my choice, no." But two months later, Christie said that she had "more than proven her capability, competence and ability," adding, "I support her appointment to the Supreme Court and urge the Senate to keep politics out of the process and confirm her nomination."
Christie’s statement that he didn’t support Sotomayor misrepresents his eventual position. We rate this claim False.

About this statement:

Published: Friday, January 15th, 2016 at 12:15 a.m.
Researched by: Amy Sherman
Edited by: Bill Adair
Subjects: Sotomayor Nomination, Supreme Court

Sources:

CBS News, "Fact check: Did Chris Christie support Sonia Sotomayor?" Jan. 12, 2016
The Washington Post The Fact Checker, "Chris Christie and Planned Parenthood: Either misleading now or misleading then," Jan. 10, 2016
Factcheck.org, "Christie’s Contradictions," Jan. 11, 2016
The Star Ledger, "GOP gov. candidate Chris Christie says he supports Sonia Sotomayor for U.S. Supreme Court," July 17, 2009
Politicker, "Christie backs Sotomayor for Supreme Court," July 17, 2009
The Washington Post, Transcript, Jan. 14, 2016
Interview, Samantha Smith, Chris Christie spokeswoman, Jan. 14, 2016

 

Supreme Court Might Decide Their Second Election 29MAR12

THIS has been my fear right along about the supreme court hearings on the Affordable Care Act. This right wing court didn't hesitate to rob the American people of an election in 2000 and I am afraid they will rob us of our right to health care as provided by Obamacare. It will be a travesty of justice if the law is overturned by this court.
It was a similar crew of conservative justices on the Supreme Court that decided that their long-held beliefs on states' rights were irrelevant and made George W. Bush our next president in 2000. Now, they're back!!! And they might decide yet another presidential election.
Imagine the damage it does to President Obama to strip him of his signature accomplishment right before the election. It would also allow the Republicans to say -- "See, we told you so! It was unconstitutional all along. It was a wild, socialist over-reach of big government." It creates a permanent stain on the law -- as if there was something horribly wrong with it all along. And it takes it off the books at a moment when it is still relatively unpopular. So, before any of the popular provisions are put into effect it would go in the record books as a complete disaster.
Why don't you just hand the Republicans the election? Which is, of course, exactly what the conservatives of this court would love to do. These conservative justices are given far too much deference in the media. They are largely partisan hacks.
Antonin Scalia is a complete fraud. He will bend any so-called principle to get to the political result he wants. If it's upholding anti-gay legislation or striking down federal laws he doesn't like, he is a huge advocate for states' rights. But if it's marijuana legalization or euthanasia or Bush v. Gore, then he hates states' rights. So, which one is it? Here's how you can tell -- which side is the Republican Party on?
Remember, this is a guy who goes duck hunting with Dick Cheney and attends political fundraisers with the Koch brothers. Of course, he doesn't recuse himself from any cases that involve those people. In fact, he votes on their side nearly 100% of the time.
We've been hearing for at least thirty years about the dangers of activist judges. That it is so wrong for unelected officials, like judges, to invalidate laws made by the people's representatives. Now, all of a sudden, the Republicans love that idea! They want to interpret the Commerce Clause in a way that it has not been interpreted since 1937. They want to invalidate a sitting president's signature piece of legislation for the first time in 75 years. And their hack, partisan justices on the Supreme Court can't wait to do their bidding.
The way Scalia, Alito and Thomas are going to vote is certain. There isn't a single Republican position those guys haven't wanted to fondle. They will enthusiastically wrap their legs around the idea that the mandate is unconstitutional. And they will double down by saying it strikes down the rest of the law with it.
John Roberts plays a moderate on TV, so there is some questions about which way he'll go. But in the real world, he always votes with the conservatives because... he is deeply conservative (or more accurately, party line Republican, no matter where the so-called conservative position lies).
So, that leaves us with Justice Kennedy, who is a genuine swing vote. But remember he is the one that swung toward Bush and meddled with how Florida counts its votes despite decades of empty talk about states' rights. If he sides with the rest of the conservative justices, he will forever cement his place on the Hack Hall of Fame as one of the most deeply partisan justices we have ever had. If he helped to decide two presidential elections based on which party he likes rather than his so-called deeply held beliefs, like his oft-repeated deference to precedent, than it would be hard to find a more political and disingenuous justice.
One last thought, which is on the sad incompetence of the Democratic Party. They should be screaming "activist judges" from the rooftops. Instead they are meekly mumbling about how it's unclear which way the court is going to go and how we shouldn't pre-judge. I got news for you -- the Republicans have been pre-judging your bill for years now. You should consider fighting back.
But the primary responsibility is the president's. Why did you agree to the Republican idea of mandates in the first place?
Orrin Hatch (R-UT) was the original sponsor of the mandate in the Senate back in 1993. The Heritage Foundation championed the idea. Mitt Romney was applauded wildly by conservatives when he passed a mandate in Massachusetts. Did the president think they would like him more if he agreed to their idea? No, they have always opposed you at every turn, and they always will. They turned on their own idea the minute you agreed to it -- and now they're using it to kill your whole bill.
When is the president ever going to learn that agreeing with Republicans never helps him? It never helps the country. All it does is make it easier for them to beat you because you made the fatal mistake of agreeing with them.
The Young Turks on Current

 

Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CenkUygur

Related News On Huffington Post:

Supreme Court Justices Take Health Care Case Behind Closed Doors

WASHINGTON -- The survival of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul rests with a Supreme Court seemingly split over ideology and, more particularly, in the...

In Health Care Case, The Roberts Court Comes Of Age

WASHINGTON -- "I win. Every time." So said Chief Justice John Roberts during Supreme Court argument Wednesday afternoon, stepping into the shoes of some hypothetical...

Antonin Scalia Compares Reading Affordable Care Act To Cruel And Unusual Punishment

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia joked that reading the entirety of the Affordable Care Act is akin to cruel and unusual punishment. "What happened...

Individual Mandate Rejection Would Leave White House 'No Contingency Plan,' Spokesman Says

WASHINGTON -- White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Wednesday that the administration does not have a backup plan in the event that the Supreme Court...

More News Posts:  « First   Prev  1  2  3  Next   Last » 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/supreme-court-health-care-law_b_1387080.html?ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=032912&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief

 

Join the Online March for Trust Women Week! 20-27 JAN 12

EVERYONE who values a woman's right to choose birth control over becoming pregnant, who values a woman's right to a safe abortion if she has been raped, or is a victim of incest, or if her health and / or life are at risk, should join the online march for women. Everyone who is tired of male politicians making life choices for women because they really don't trust women to make the right decisions for themselves should join the online march for women. Send a message to Congress and Pres Obama, show them American women can be trusted to make their own decisions about their own lives and that we demand all politicians show women the respect they deserve, to protect women's civil rights and liberties. Click the link to sign up as a supporter of the virtual march for Trust Women Week 20-27 JAN 12. Click the header to go to the Silver Ribbon Site.

Join the Online March to Stand Up and Say, "I Trust Women!"

Today, as we celebrate the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, women’s reproductive freedom and health are still under attack.


The Tea Party Congress has moved aggressively to shut down women's access to reproductive health care and deny women the basic right to choose by targeting their health insurance and key healthcare providers, most notably, Planned Parenthood. In the states, a movement is afoot to make abortions illegal by conferring the status of “personhood” on embryos, and various state legislatures have taken up bills that would erect insurmountable barriers to women exercising their right to choose.


People For the American Way is proud to be partnering with the Silver Ribbon Campaign and an extremely broad coalition of organizations to promote the Virtual March celebrating Trust Women Week.


It is imperative that we begin 2012 with a powerful event that builds solidarity and momentum for reproductive health, rights and justice.


Join the Virtual March now and send your views to Congress and other elected officials where key decisions are pending about reproductive health, rights and justice.


You'll see your actions on an online map where you can also see who else is joining you, nearby and nationwide.


Choose from messages like:

• “I trust women and I vote”
• “Reproductive rights are human rights”
• “We are the 99%. Fix the economy, and stop the war on women”
• And more.

Join the march now and then help spread the word!


You can find out more about Trust Women Week at http://oursilverribbon.org.


Thank you for standing up for women’s rights and against right-wing attacks on reproductive freedom.


-- Jen Herrick, Senior Policy Analyst

Co-sign Rep. Murphy's letter to hold Clarence Thomas accountable 25JUN11

clarence thomas is a disgrace to our nation's highest court, he acts more like a third world despot than a U.S. Supreme Court justice. We do not have to stand for this, we can support members of Congress calling for an investigation. This from Credo Action, click the link to sign their petition to the House Judiciary Committee....

We need real ethics rules for the Supreme Court Become a co-signer of Rep. Chris Murphy's letter asking the House Judiciary Committee to investigate recent actions of Clarence Thomas and to consider extending the Judicial Conference Code of Conduct for all federal judges to members of the U.S. Supreme Court. (Full letter text at left.) Rep. Murphy will deliver the names of co-signers to the House Judiciary Committee. Automatically add your name:

Learn more about this campaign.

Over 200,000 people have signed our petition calling for the resignation of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. And we're making waves in Washington. Thanks to your activism, momentum is building behind an effort to hold Clarence Thomas accountable for his blatant disregard for the Judicial Code of Conduct.

Just this week, Congressman Chris Murphy penned a "Dear Colleague" letter asking his fellow members of Congress to sign on to an urgent request to Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith. This letter, spurred by the recent New York Times expose of Clarence Thomas' unethical relationship with rightwing funder and activist Harlan Crow, urges the House Judiciary Committee to hold hearings on escalating reports of unethical behavior by Supreme Court Justices.

And now Chris Murphy has invited all Americans to add their voice to this effort.

Click here to automatically co-sign Rep. Chris Murphy's letter asking the House Judiciary Committee to investigate recentactions of Clarence Thomas and to consider extending the Judicial Conference Code of Conduct for all federal judges to membersof the U.S. Supreme Court.

You can read the full text of the letter below. And if you become a co-signer, Rep. Murphy will deliver your signature to the House Judiciary Committee.

Shockingly, the Supreme Court is not legally bound by the code of conduct for federal judges, though Supreme Court Justices Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy have testified to Congress that members of the Supreme Court voluntarily follow the code that explicitly prohibits justices from directly soliciting charitable donations.

It's not acceptable that Clarence Thomas and the U.S. Supreme Court are essentially above the law when it comes to ethics standards. That's why Rep. Christopher Murphy has introduced the Supreme Court Transparency and Disclosure Act.

Under this bill, the Judicial Conference Code of Conduct that governs the ethical behavior of federal judges would also apply to Clarence Thomas and the rest of the Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas would no longer be able to attend blatantly political events, participate in fundraising events or accept gifts by individuals or groups with business before the court.

Click here to automatically co-sign Rep. Chris Murphy's letter asking the House Judiciary Committee to investigate recentactions of Clarence Thomas and to consider extending the Judicial Conference Code of Conduct for all federal judges to membersof the U.S. Supreme Court.

We know letters like this can make a difference. When a member of Congress like Chris Murphy takes a stand on a progressive issue, it gets more notice from the press, from his colleagues, and ultimately in this case from the members of the Supreme Court. We need to help Rep. Murphy get as many signatures on his letter as possible before he delivers it to the House Judiciary Committee next week.

Here is the letter from Rep. Chris Murphy:

Dear Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Conyers:

We write to you today to ask that you hold a hearing on HR 862, the Supreme Court Transparency and Disclosure Act. This commonsense bill would go a long way towards restoring the public's confidence in the Supreme Court after several recent questionable actions by some of its members.

The Supreme Court must be a neutral arbiter that acts without bias or prejudice. We the people created our Constitution to "establish justice," and the promise that Supreme Court justices abide by the rule of law and not political influence or ideology is at the foundation of who we are as a country.

This bedrock principle is important with the prospect that the Supreme Court will eventually rule on the constitutionality of legislation debated by this Congress, like the Affordable Care Act. Whatever the justices decide, the legitimacy of their decisions depend on whether the American people believe them to be impartial and above any particular political or financial interests.

Yet, there have been alarming reports of justices — most notably Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito — attending political events and using their position to fundraise for organizations. These activities would be prohibited if the justices were required to abide by the Judicial Conference Code of Conduct, which currently applies to all other federal judges. On these issues the code is quite clear. Canon 4C states that "a judge should not personally participate in fund-raising activities, solicit funds for any organization, or use or permit the use of the prestige of the judicial office for that purpose." Additionally, in Canon 5 the code states, "[a] judge must refrain from all political activity." While we understand that the Supreme Court is unique by its very nature, we do not believe there should be one set of guidelines for Supreme Court justices and stricter standards for all others judges.

The Supreme Court possesses the incredible power to interpret or even strike down laws they deem inconsistent with the Constitution. America trusts them with this power because justices must come to each case without a personal or financial stake in the outcome. Recent revelations about Justice Thomas accepting tens of thousands of dollars' worth of gifts from individuals and organizations who often have an interest in matters before the courts calls into question the Court's impartiality. Canon 4D of the Code of Conduct incorporates regulations providing that "[a] judicial officer or employee shall not accept a gift from anyone who is seeking official action from or doing business with the court." Yet Justice Thomas received a gift valued at $15,000 from an organization that had a brief pending before his Court at the very moment they gave him the gift. Incidents such as these undermine the integrity of the entire judiciary, and they should not be allowed to continue.

The Supreme Court Transparency and Disclosure Act was introduced to shine a light on these issues. First, it would apply the Judicial Conference Code of Conduct, which applies to all other federaljudges, to Supreme Court Justices. Currently, the justices only look to this standard as "guidance". Second, the bill would require Supreme Court justices to publicly disclose their reasoning behind a recusal when they withdraw from a case and when they refuse to recuse themselves after a motion is made for them to do so. Lastly, it would require the Judicial Conference to develop a process to review decisions by justices who have refused to step aside from a case.

As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once said, "sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants". It is time that we apply that same ideal to the Supreme Court. Again, we urge you to schedule a hearing on HR 862, to help restore the public's faith in our judicial system and to guarantee the integrity of our country's highest court.

Sincerely,
Rep. Christopher Murphy (D-CT)

Click here to automatically co-sign Rep. Chris Murphy's letter asking the House Judiciary Committee to investigate recentactions of Clarence Thomas and to consider extending the Judicial Conference Code of Conduct for all federal judges to membersof the U.S. Supreme Court.

It's important to build on the momentum created by the recent New York Times expose that detailed the improper ties between Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and influential rightwing funder and activist Harlan Crow.¹

Crow is a major contributor to conservative causes and a stalwart supporter of Clarence Thomas. In past years he gave Thomas' wife, Ginni Thomas, $500,000 to exploit the Citizens United decision and start a shadowy, Tea Party-related group called Liberty Central.² He gave Thomas a Bible (estimated value $15,000) that once belonged to Frederick Douglass, and reportedly provided the Supreme Court Justice with access to his yacht and private jet.

As if that wasn't enough, the New York Times has revealed that Thomas solicited a multi-million dollar donation from Crow to benefit one of his own pet projects near his birthplace in a remote coastal community outside Savannah, Georgia.

We must not pass up this chance to hold Clarence Thomas accountable. Rep. Christopher Murphy's call for an investigation by the House Judiciary and his bill to add ethics rules with teeth to the Supreme Court is an important next step.

Becky Bond, Political Director
CREDO Action from Working Assets

1. Friendship of Justice and Magnate Puts Focus on Ethics, New York Times, June 19, 2011.
2. Justice Thomas's wife now lobbyist, Politico, February 4, 2011.

Ron Paul Calls Social Security and Medicare Unconstitutional, Compares Them to ‘Slavery’ 15MAI11

ron paul is a warped and twisted person. The fact that he is elected time after time speaks poorly of his constituents, a majority of them have to be as warped and twisted as he is. Here is his latest rant via ThinkProgress....
Appearing on Fox News Sunday this morning, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) defended his longstanding view that Medicare, Social Security (and pretty much everything else) violate the Constitution. At one point, Paul even claimed that letting Social Security and similar programs to move forward is just like permitting slavery:

WALLACE: You talk a lot about the Constitution. You say Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are all unconstitutional.
PAUL: Technically, they are. . . . there’s no authority [in the Constitution]. Article I, Section 8 doesn’t say I can set up an insurance program for people. What part of the Constitution are you getting it from? The liberals are the ones who use this General Welfare Clause. . . . That is such an extreme liberal viewpoint that has been mistaught in our schools for so long and that’s what we have to reverse—that very notion that you’re presenting.
WALLACE: Congressman, it’s not just a liberal view. It was the decision of the Supreme Court in 1937 when they said that Social Security was constitutional under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
PAUL: And the Constitution and the courts said slavery was legal to, and we had to reverse that.

Watch it:

As Chris Wallace tries to explain, Paul’s crankish view of the Constitution cannot be squared with the document’s text. The Constitution gives Congress the power to “to lay and collect taxes” and to “provide for the…general welfare of the United States,” which is exactly what Social Security does. Nor is this reading of the Constitution’s unambiguous words limited to “extreme liberals.” Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia recently told a gathering of Members of Congress that “It’s up to Congress how you want to appropriate, basically.”

Indeed, the overwhelming majority of Paul’s fellow House Republicans disagree with his bizarre view that Medicare and other government-funded insurance programs violate the Constitution. 207 Republicans voted in support of President George W. Bush’s proposal to create a federal prescription drug insurance program under Medicare, including such notables as future Speaker John Boehner, uber-tenther Scott Garrett, and future Budget chair Paul Ryan. Although the GOP more recently voted for a radical plan to phase out the Medicare program, even that slow repeal of Medicare cannot be squared with Paul’s apparent view that it violates the Constitution to allow Medicare to continue one minute longer.

Like so many other Republicans, Paul needs to learn that the Constitution is not some toy that he can take apart and reassemble to force the nation down whatever path he chooses. The Constitution’s words actually mean something, and Ron Paul is not free to ignore them.

High Court Rules For Anti-Gay Protesters At Funerals & Supreme Court rules First Amendment protects church's right to picket funerals 2MAR11

While the people of the Westboro "Baptist Church" are disgusting, this is a Republic, and our constitution guarantees freedom of speech. I understand the court's decision and am glad they decided to protect the 1st Amendment. From NPR and the Washington Post....

by Nina Totenberg

March 2, 2011

Listen to the Story

All Things Considered

 

Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images Members of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., staged a protest across the street from a high school in Hyattsville, Md., a day before the Supreme Court ruling.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that protesters at military funerals cannot be sued for inflicting emotional distress on the family of a dead soldier. The vote was 8 to 1.
When Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder was killed in Iraq, his funeral in Westminster, Md., drew thousands to pay their respects. But it also drew a protest from the Rev. Fred Phelps and six other members of the Westboro Baptist Church, based in Topeka, Kan.

Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and ... inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.

- Chief Justice John Roberts, in the majority opinion

Phelps and other church members have traveled the country for years, picketing hundreds of military funerals to communicate their belief that "God hates the USA" for its tolerance of homosexuality, particularly in the military.
The picketers did not contend that Snyder was gay. Rather, their message, as Phelps puts it, was that "the whole country is given over to sodomy and to sodomite enablers."
The picketers followed their usual practice at the Snyder funeral. They alerted police in advance and followed instructions to set up their protest on public property, at a site 1,000 feet away from the church, near the vehicle entrance.
Though the protest was peaceful and ended before the funeral began, the picketers carried signs with messages offensive to many, including "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "Fags Doom Nations" and "America Is Doomed."
Albert Snyder, the father of the dead Marine, did not see the signs until later when he viewed TV coverage. He says the picketers turned his son's funeral into a circus, taking away his "last moment" with his son.
"This was a funeral. This wasn't a parade going down the street. I shouldn't have to look away from anything at my own child's funeral," Snyder says. "That's absurd."
Snyder sued Phelps and his church for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
"These people targeted me and my family, and they have done this to over 200 other military men and women's families," Snyder says, his voice rising. "I want to know how you would feel if somebody stood 30 feet away from the main vehicle entrance of a church where you're trying to bury your mother, with a sign that says, 'Thank God for dead sluts.' You tell me that shouldn't be illegal. Is 'fag' any worse than 'slut'?"
A jury agreed with Snyder and awarded him $5 million in damages. But the Supreme Court set aside that verdict Wednesday.

Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case.

- Justice Samuel Alito, who cast the lone dissenting vote

Writing for the court majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said that as repugnant as many of the signs were, they were still plainly related to public, rather than private, matters. They focused on "the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens," he said, and speech of such public concern is protected by the First Amendment.
Although Westboro may have chosen to protest the funeral to gain publicity for its views, said the chief justice, and although those views may be particularly hurtful to the dead soldier's father, that does not mean the church members' right of free speech can be curtailed or punished. And a jury award amounts to punishment, Roberts contended, by imposing a penalty for expressing an unpopular viewpoint.
"Speech is powerful," Roberts said in conclusion. "It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a nation we have chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."
Reaction to the decision was markedly muted, given the outrage voiced by veterans groups and politicians at the time the case was argued in the Supreme Court.
The Democratic and Republican leaders of the Senate, along with 40 other members of Congress, filed a brief on Snyder's side. But on Wednesday, reaction on Capitol Hill was nowhere to be found, except in a couple of written statements.
Lawyer Gene Schaerr, who filed a brief in the case for the American Legion, said he was heartened by the fact that the court specifically mentioned that 43 states have enacted laws that put a buffer zone of 100 feet or more around funeral sites. Such laws would not have affected the protest in this case, since protesters were 1,000 feet away.
Nonetheless, says Schaerr, the decision "sends a clear signal to the lower courts that they should not interpret anything in this opinion as casting any doubt about those statutes." The court, however, specifically left open that question, noting that restrictions on the time, place and manner of protests are appropriate in some circumstances.
Wednesday's 8-to-1 ruling came as no surprise to First Amendment scholars, both right and left. They note that the decision is in line with many court decisions protecting the rights of fringe groups — from Nazis marching in Skokie, Ill., to flag burners at a Republican convention in Texas.
University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone notes that Wednesday's ruling fits neatly into that tradition, calling it a "classic case." The only surprise, maintained Stone, was that anyone dissented.
Justice Samuel Alito was the lone dissenter. He viewed the protesters' speech as targeting a private person — the father of the dead soldier — and said that the First Amendment does not give license to such outrageous conduct.
"In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated," wrote Alito, "it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims."

Related NPR Stories

A Peek Inside The Westboro Baptist Church March 2, 2011

A nearly unanimous Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the First Amendment protects even hurtful speech about public issues and upheld the right of a fringe church to protest near military funerals.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that the Topeka, Kan.-based Westboro Baptist Church's picketing "is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible." But he said government "cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker."
"As a nation we have chosen a different course - to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate," Roberts said.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. was the lone dissenter.
"Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case," Alito wrote.
The case concerned Westboro's picketing at the funeral of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, 20, who was killed in Iraq. The church - which is made up almost entirely of the family members of its founder, the Rev. Fred W. Phelps - picketed the 2006 funeral in Westminster, Md., carrying signs such as "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "God Hates Fags" and "America Is Doomed."
Margie Phelps, a lawyer and daughter of Phelps who argued the case at the court, struck a triumphant tone.
"Our reaction is thank God and praise his name," she said in a phone interview. "He has a message for this nation, and from the Pentagon on down, you're not going to be able to fight it."
The church contends military deaths are God's revenge for the country's tolerance of homosexuality. Matthew's father, Albert Snyder, sued.
"We're certainly surprised at the outcome and surprised that the court would find private individuals have no remedies in these cases," Snyder's lawyer Sean E. Summers said. He predicted the decision would encourage even more protests at military funerals. "There's certainly nothing to deter them now."
He said Snyder's "first thought was where this leaves future families" who might be the target of the protests. "Mr. Snyder's not a lawyer. He viewed this as a common-sense case."
Church members have said they have no sympathy for Snyder, and that continued after Wednesday's decision. Phelps thanked Snyder for filing the suit and "putting a megaphone to the mouth of this little church."
Asked whether the decision would change the church's tactics, Margie Phelps said: "We're going to picket more."
Snyder argued at trial that the Phelpses had invaded his privacy, caused emotional distress and violated his rights to free exercise of religion and peaceful assembly.
A Baltimore jury awarded Snyder more than $10 million, which was cut in half by the judge and then overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond. A three-judge panel said that although the rhetoric used was offensive, it was protected as speech concerning issues in the national debate.

Clarence Thomas: A supreme ethical conflict from CREDO & Reagan DOJ Official Slams Scalia’s Tea Party Gathering from THINKPROGRESS 10FEB11

TWO Supreme Court justices ethically challenged, and a threat to our judicial system and to the civil rights and liberties guaranteed by our constitution. clarence thomas must recuse himself from all deliberations on health care reform, the Affordable Care Act. Join Credo in calling for justice thomas to recuse himself by clicking the link. And check out the article from ThinkProgress on former Deputy Attorney General (reagan administration) Bruce Fein's opinion on justice antonin scalia's lack of judicial propriety with his relationship with the tea party and koch brothers......

Tell Clarence Thomas: Recuse yourself A supreme ethical conflict To protect the honor of the highest court in the land, Thomas must recuse himself from deliberations on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Clicking here will add your name to the letter to Justice Thomas. A case challenging the constitutionality of the health care reform bill passed by Congress is headed to the Supreme Court, and Justice Clarence Thomas has a supreme ethical conflict. It's been widely reported that the Thomas family has financial ties to the conservative organizations leading the campaign to bring down our new health care law — the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Rep. Anthony Weiner and 73 other members of Congress have signed a letter detailing the appearance of ethical conflict and asking Justice Thomas to recuse himself from deliberations on the constitutionality of health care reform. We're asking you to sign a companion letter that Rep. Weiner — a champion of progressive issues — will deliver to the Supreme Court along with the letter signed by members of Congress. Tell Justice Clarence Thomas: Recuse yourself from deliberations on the constitutionality of health care reform. Click here to automatically sign the letter below. The letter to Justice Thomas reads: As an Associate Justice, you are entrusted with the responsibility to exercise the highest degree of discretion and impartiality when deciding a case. We join Rep. Anthony Weiner and other members of Congress in writing to note our surprise at recent revelations of your financial ties to leading organizations dedicated to lobbying against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. We write today to respectfully ask that you maintain the integrity of this court and recuse yourself from any deliberations on the constitutionality of this act. The appearance of a conflict of interest merits recusal under federal law. From what we have already seen, the line between your impartiality and you and your wife's financial stake in the overturn of health care reform is blurred. Your spouse is advertising herself as a lobbyist who has "experience and connections" and appeals to clients who want a particular decision — they want to overturn health care reform. Moreover, your failure to disclose Ginny Thomas's receipt of $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, a prominent opponent of health care reform, between 2003 and 2007 has raised great concern. This is not the first case where your impartiality was in question. As Common Cause points out, you "participated in secretive political strategy sessions, perhaps while the case was pending, with corporate leaders whose political aims were advanced by the [5-4] decision" on the Citizens United case. Your spouse also received an undisclosed salary paid for by undisclosed donors as CEO of Liberty Central, a 501(c)(4) organization that stood to benefit from the decision and played an active role in the 2010 elections. Given these facts, there is a strong conflict between the Thomas household's financial gain through your spouse's activities and your role as a Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. We urge you to recuse yourself from this case. If the US Supreme Court's decision is to be viewed as legitimate by the American people, this is the only correct path. We appreciate your thoughtful consideration of this request. Click here to automatically sign your name to our letter to Justice Thomas that will be delivered to the Supreme Court by progressive champion Rep. Anthony Weiner. Thomas failed to disclose that his wife Ginni Thomas received a total of $686,589 in compensation from the Heritage Foundation.1 Furthermore his wife is currently advertising herself as a lobbyist who has "experience and connections" to conservative groups who have an explicit agenda to overturn health care reform — by repeal in the Congress or overturning the law in the courts.2 Justice Thomas is no stranger to questions of ethics. Along with Justice Antonin Scalia he attended meetings organized by the secretive, Tea Party-funding billionaire Koch brothers. The Koch brothers have been key players in rewriting the political landscape after the Citizens United Supreme Court decision unleashed the floodgates of corporate money in federal politics.3 And Thomas' wife has received an undisclosed salary paid for by undisclosed donors as CEO of Liberty Central, a 501(c)(4) organization that was formed to take advantage of Citizens United rules and to play an active role in the 2010 elections. Unlike other members of the federal judiciary, Supreme Court Justices have no specific code of ethics to which they may be held accountable. But there is a clear appearance of a conflict of interest between his wife's clear financial stake in overturning the health care law and Justice Thomas' personal duty to exhibit the highest degree of discretion and impartiality. To protect the honor of the highest court in the land, Thomas must recuse himself from deliberations on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Tell Justice Clarence Thomas: Recuse yourself from deliberations on the constitutionality of health care reform. Clicking here will automatically sign your name to the above letter. Sincerely, Becky Bond, Political Director CREDO Action from Working Assets Notes: 1"What else haven't they told us?" Common Cause, Jan. 21, 2011. 2"Adventures of Ginni Thomas," Ben Smith, Politico, Feb. 4, 2011. 3"Justices Scalia And Thomas's Attendance At Koch Event Sparks Judicial Ethics Debate," Sam Stein, Huffington Post, Oct. 20, 2010. Share on Facebook Post to your feed wall Tweet this Post to Twitter

© 2011 CREDO. All rights reserved. Questions? Send us an e-mail or write us at: 101 Market Street, Suite 700, San Francisco, CA 94105.

Reagan DOJ Official Slams Scalia’s Tea Party Gathering

Bruce Fein, Ronald Reagan’s former Associate Deputy Attorney General, published a letter in today’s New York Times castigating Justice Antonin Scalia for speaking to a backroom meeting organized by the House Tea Party Caucus:

Justice Antonin Scalia galloped beyond the farthest boundaries of judicial propriety in secretly meeting on Capitol Hill to discuss the Constitution with Tea Party members of Congress saddled with a co-equal duty to assess the constitutionality of legislative action. If there are better ways to destroy public confidence in judicial impartiality, they do not readily come to mind. … Associate Justice Abe Fortas was forced to resign for, among other things, secretly advising President Lyndon B. Johnson on race, urban unrest and the Vietnam War.

Sadly, Scalia’s schmoozing with Tea Partiers is only one of many recent instances which call into question the impartiality of the federal bench. Scalia and his colleague Clarence Thomas both attended Koch-hosted fundraising sessions devoted to building and funding a corporate political movement. Likewise, Justice Alito is a profligate fundraiser for right-wing political causes. Justice Thomas’ wife may have found a way to get rich off of her husband’s judicial decisions. Three federal appellate judges sit on the board of an infamous “junkets for judges” organization that offers expense-paid trips to western resorts for judges who agree to attend a seminar on how to rule in favor of corporations. In the Fifth Circuit, which will hear appeals arising out of the BP oil disaster, ten of the court’s sixteen judges hold oil investments. The court’s chief judge, Edith Jones, holds as much as $330,000 in oil investments and frequently attends pro-corporate junkets. All of this raises serious questions about whether ordinary Americans can expect impartial justice, or whether justice is only available to those who can afford it.

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/11/fein-scalia/

FOTZE Sarah Palin's WikiLeaks Fail from MOJO 29NOV10

VIEWS on the news from Planet Sarah.....she really is a stupid fotze....

People who do not need more evidence of Sarah Palin's lack of seriousness should not read further.
As the WikiLeaks controversy continues, Palin could not resist the urge to tweet her thoughts about the affair. On Monday morning, she sent this message to her 317,000 Twitter followers:

Inexplicable: I recently won in court to stop my book "America by Heart" from being leaked,but US Govt can't stop Wikileaks' treasonous act?

Inexplicable? Does she not understand the difference between apples and nuclear reactors? The two instances she links have little in common. In the case of her book, she managed to get a judge to order Gawker to take down a post showing portions of her book after the website had put them up. And the judge in this case was following precedent established when The Nation magazine was successfully sued by Harper & Row in the 1970s after publishing excerpts of former President Gerald Ford's memoirs before the book was released. The Supreme Court, deciding the case in favor of the publisher, said media outlets could not, under a claim of fair use, publish a significant portion of a copyrighted book (accepting the argument that this could weaken the commercial value of the book). Palin's lawyers took advantage of this ruling, in demanding that Gawker not show the actual pages of her book.
Stopping a media leak involving government information before the fact is not the same. The grand-daddy legal decision on this front comes out of the famous Pentagon Papers case, when the Supreme Court ruled that the government could not block newspapers from publishing the secret Pentagon history of the Vietnam war leaked by Daniel Ellsberg to The New York Times and other papers. The guiding principle here: the government does not have the right to impose prior restraint on the media.
This latest WikiLeaks episode could cause some, including Palin, to argue that in these post-9/11 days the prior restraint rule is a luxury that cannot be afforded. But that's where the law stands. With her tweet tying this important and historical issue to her own (less consequential) book, Palin demonstrates that for her simplistic analysis is the best analysis and that the best way to understand anything is to view that topic from Planet Sarah.

Health Care Reform Challenge REJECTED By Supreme Court 8NOV10

AMERICAN PEOPLE 1, gop & tea-baggers 0

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has turned down the first preliminary challenge to President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.
The decision Monday to reject an appeal from a former Republican state lawmaker in California was no surprise because a federal appeals court has yet to consider the case. The high court almost never reviews cases before the issues have been aired in lower courts.
Of more significance is the sign that all the justices took part in rejecting the appeal. New Justice Elena Kagan refused to say during her confirmation hearings whether she would take part in the court's deliberations over the health care law. Kagan was Obama's solicitor general before joining the court.
The court has noted Kagan's absence in more than two dozen other cases, suggesting that she voted on the health care appeal.
Kagan has stepped aside from cases in which she was involved as a Justice Department official before joining the court.
Justice Clarence Thomas also apparently voted on the case. Some critics have called on Thomas to step aside from the health care cases because his wife, Virginia Thomas, has been an outspoken opponent of the law in her role as founder of the conservative advocacy group Liberty Central.
___
The case is Baldwin v. Sebelius, 10-369.

ACLU ONLINE NEWSLETTER 5NOV10

ARTICLES and actions on paycheck fairness, gene ownership, Amazon and privacy, cell phone tracking, fbi monitoring, religion, Bagram and more. Read, participate and share!

Enough Already! Let's Pass Paycheck Fairness! Who Owns Your Genes? You Do. Victory! Federal Court Upholds Amazon Users' Privacy and Free Speech Rights Cameras in the High Court: It's About Time Warrantless Cell Phone Tracking Unconstitutional, Federal Judge Finds Civil Liberties Minute: The FBI and Your Online Habits ACLU Challenges Discriminatory Arizona School Tuition Program Government Can Keep Basic Facts about Bagram Prisoners Secret, Federal Court Rules Civil Liberties Minute: The FBI and Your Online Habits Do you mind if your online habits are monitored and recorded by the FBI? >> Listen to the podcast. ACLU Challenges Discriminatory Arizona School Tuition Program Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in an ACLU case challenging an Arizona tax credit-funded school tuition program under which most of the state-funded, private school scholarships are unconstitutionally awarded on a religiously discriminatory basis. Under the challenged program, Arizona scholarships are awarded by School Tuition Organizations (STOs). These organizations are certified and closely supervised by the state and financed exclusively by state income tax revenues. Taxpayers can direct their tax payments to the STOs for a 100 percent tax credit, rather than pay the Department of Revenue — essentially costing the taxpayers nothing. The cost is borne entirely by the state's general fund. Since its passage in 1997, the tuition tax credit scheme has been dominated by religious discrimination. More than half of over $50 million awarded by STOs in 2009, for example, was awarded by STOs that required students to attend religious schools in order to receive scholarships. The Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization, a petitioner in this case, states that its goal is "to further Christian education by effectively implementing the provisions of [the program] for the benefit of Christian school students and their families." "The decision to award scholarships in Arizona rests entirely in the hands of taxpayer-funded, state-sanctioned organizations, the majority of which are religious in nature," said Daniel Mach, Director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. "The government should have no role in supporting programs that play favorites when it comes to religion." "By appointing religious organizations to disburse scholarships that are funded completely with tax revenues and allowing those organizations to grant scholarships based on the religion of applicants, the state is unconstitutionally engaging in religious discrimination," said Paul Bender, lead counsel, who argued the case for the plaintiffs. "We are hopeful that the Court will see that this is not a program of private taxpayer charity but a government spending program that supports religious discrimination." >> Learn more about this case. back to top Government Can Keep Basic Facts about Bagram Prisoners Secret, Federal Court Rules The Defense Department can continue to withhold key information from the public about the hundreds of detainees imprisoned by the U.S. military at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, according to a federal court ruling last month. The ruling came in an ACLU Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Defense Department and the CIA for records related to the detention and treatment of prisoners at Bagram (now known as Parwan). The Defense Department has released the names of the 645 prisoners who were detained there as of September 2009 but has kept secret other vital information, including their citizenship, how long they have been held, in what country they were captured and the circumstances of their capture. The ACLU charged that the Defense Department is improperly withholding these basic facts about Bagram prisoners and their detention, and asked the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to order the Defense Department to turn over the information. In denying the ACLU's motion, the court also ruled that the CIA did not act improperly when it refused to even confirm or deny whether the CIA had records about the rendition and interrogation of Bagram detainees. The U.S. military has announced its intention to transfer control of Bagram prison to the Afghan government next year. However, media outlets have reported that the Obama administration intends to maintain control over a portion of the prison and to continue detaining some prisoners in U.S. custody there, including non-Afghan terrorism suspects captured outside of Afghanistan and prisoners considered "enduring security threats." "The public has a right to know how long the U.S. has kept people locked up in military detention and under what circumstances," said Melissa Goodman, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. "The lack of transparency about these key facts is even more disturbing considering the possibility that the U.S. will continue holding and interrogating prisoners at Bagram well into the future. Unfortunately, today's ruling will allow the government to continue hiding this vital information." >> Learn more about the ACLU's FOIA lawsuit. back to top Do you know somebody who would be interested in getting news about the ACLU and what we're doing to protect civil liberties? Help us spread the word about ACLU Online — forward this newsletter to a friend.

November 5, 2010 Enough Already! Let's Pass Paycheck Fairness! Now is the time to end wage discrimination once and for all. Tell your senators to support the Paycheck Fairness Act today. When the Senate comes back to Washington on November 15 to finish its post-election work, one of the very first issues they will be voting on will be the Paycheck Fairness Act — legislation to finally achieve equal pay for men and women in the workplace. It's been 47 years since the passage of the Equal Pay Act, and yet, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau, women, on average, make only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. The figures are even worse for women of color. African American women only earned approximately 61 cents and Latinas only 52 cents for each dollar earned by a white male. Chronic wage discrimination can deprive a woman of between $700,000 and $2 million over her career. The House already passed this legislation. And the Senate is scheduled to vote on it as soon as November 17! We are very close to passage in this Congress, but we may not get another chance to finally close the wage gap for a very long time. That's why it's so important to let your senators know that you care about equal pay today. >> Take action: With less than two weeks remaining to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act in this Congress, we need our Senators to act now! back to top Who Owns Your Genes? You Do. Tell Congress your genes aren't for sale! The U.S. government filed a friend-of-the-court brief last week in a lawsuit brought by the ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) challenging patents on human genes. The government agreed with our stance that isolated DNA is not patentable. The ACLU and PUBPAT filed the lawsuit in May 2009 challenging the patents held by Myriad Genetics on the human genes BRCA1 and BRCA2, which are associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. The lawsuit charged that the patents stifle diagnostic testing and research that could lead to cures and that they limit women's options regarding their medical care. A federal court ruled in March 2010 that the patents on BRCA1 and 2 are invalid, and Myriad is appealing that ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. According to the government's brief, "The chemical structure of native human genes is a product of nature, and it is no less a product of nature when that structure is 'isolated' from its natural environment than are cotton fibers that have been separated from cotton seeds or coal that has been extracted from the earth." "We are extremely gratified that the government has agreed with us that genes are products of nature and therefore not patentable," said Sandra Park, staff attorney with the ACLU Women's Rights Project and a lawyer on the case. "Gene patents restrict patients' access to their own genetic information and chill important research. The lower court correctly found that no one should be able to patent human genes, and we are confident the appeals court will uphold that decision." >> Take action: Tell Congress your genes aren't for sale! back to top Victory! Federal Court Upholds Amazon Users' Privacy and Free Speech Rights Last month, a federal district court in Seattle ruled that the North Carolina Department of Revenue's (NCDOR) demands for detailed information about the purchases of Amazon.com customers violated the Constitution and the federal Video Privacy Protection Act. NCDOR had asked for the records as part of a tax audit of Amazon. Amazon provided the agency with detailed information regarding the items purchased, including the dates of purchase, amount of purchases, and county to which the items were shipped — this being the only information, North Carolina has acknowledged, needed to assess sales taxes. Amazon did not turn over records revealing its customers' identities and linking customers to specific purchases, even though the requests called for such information. After North Carolina refused to back down from its demand for user information and Amazon sued, the ACLU intervened on behalf of several North Carolina residents who feared that disclosure of the books, movies, music, and other items they had purchased would reveal highly personal and intimate details of their lives. The court agreed that the government has no right to know such personal information. We applaud the court's ruling, the latest in a line of decisions making clear that the First Amendment limits the government's ability to seek information about individuals' reading, listening, or viewing choices. The court concluded, as we argued, that even the prospect of the government tracking these choices is harmful because it might cause any of us to fear buying perfectly legal materials online. Requesting information about what people are purchasing online causes real harm to real people, and it is unconstitutional in these circumstances. The ACLU will continue to fight against government requests for information that is so personal and private — and is so fundamental to our society. back to top Cameras in the High Court: It's About Time >> Urge your Senator to support the bill allowing broadcast television coverage of Supreme Court proceedings. Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Warren Burger once said: "People in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, but it is difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited from observing." Yet despite this sentiment and the benefits of transparency in government, television cameras are still banned from open Supreme Court proceedings. This session alone, the court is scheduled to hear cases involving vital issues related to free speech, immigration, the establishment clause, and state secrets. Additional access to the court would allow Americans the opportunity to gain a better understanding of these issues and the debates surrounding them. Isn't it time the court moved into the 21st century and allowed the American people to witness first-hand the discussions surrounding these truly monumental issues? In a move to correct this outdated situation, Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) introduced a bipartisan bill that would allow broadcast television coverage of open Supreme Court proceedings. The bill has advanced out of the Senate Judiciary Committee and now awaits a floor vote. >> Take action: Urge your Senator to support the bill allowing broadcast television coverage of Supreme Court proceedings. back to top Warrantless Cell Phone Tracking Unconstitutional, Federal Judge Finds In August, a New York federal court found that law enforcement agents are constitutionally obligated to get a warrant based on probable cause before obtaining historical cell phone location information. And in September, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals held that judges may order the government to get a warrant for cell phone location information based on probable cause. However, the 3rd Circuit also held that judges are not obligated to require probable cause and cautioned that they should only require the government to meet this high standard on rare occasions. Now, another court has joined the fray. In a detailed opinion citing documents obtained through litigation by the ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation, Judge Stephen Smith of the Southern District of Texas held that "warrantless disclosure of cell site data violates the Fourth Amendment." A few aspects of the opinion are worth noting: According to Judge Smith, "the Government seeks continuous location data to track the target phone over a two month period, whether the phone was in active use or not." This is notable because the cell tracking applications we have seen previously only sought location information for those moments when an individual actually made a phone call. The government is now asking for a great deal more information, and consequently, its requests are now more invasive than we previously thought. Cell tracking information has grown to be more accurate over time. In fact, it is because of these "refinements in location-based technology" that Judge Smith concludes that requests for cell tracking information trigger the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. The Fourth Amendment requires the government to get a warrant and show probable cause to obtain historical cell tracking information. The court reached this conclusion both because cell tracking reveals information about constitutionally protected spaces, such as the home, and because the prolonged nature of such surveillance is very invasive. The ACLU agrees with Judge Smith that the government should be required to obtain a warrant and show probable cause before obtaining cell tracking information. As powerful new technologies enhance the ability of government agents to track our every move, it becomes all the more important that the courts hold the government to a rigorous standard it's able to access such sensitive information. back to top Join us on...

American Civil Liberties Union 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, New York 10004-2400 Lisa Sock and Joe McLaughlin, Editors

Privacy Statement This mail is never sent unsolicited. You, or someone on your behalf, has subscribed to receive this information from the American Civil Liberties Union. At the ACLU Web site, the ACLU gathers anonymous summary statistics on the responses to our email newsletters in order to better serve list subscribes and ACLU members. To review our Privacy Statement, click here.