[andylei]

the courts always rule in favor of the executive branch. every single ruling. don't even bother reading the opinions; there's nothing useful in those. if you see "United States" at the top, you'll immediately know the victor.

[dragonwriter]

> the courts always rule in favor of the executive branch. every single ruling. don't even bother reading the opinions; there's nothing useful in those. if you see "United States" at the top, you'll immediately know the victor.

United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972) [1] -- particularly relevant in the area of domestic surveillance -- disagrees with you.

[1] http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/407/297/case.html

[rallison]

The person you are replying to appears to have been going for sarcasm, not seriousness.

[jessaustin]

Surely we can say at this point that ruling is a dead letter? Lots of people are nostalgic for the freedom that some of us used to have.

[dragonwriter]

> Surely we can say at this point that ruling is a dead letter?

It explicitly didn't consider foreign intelligence surveillance power, and FISA was adopted after it to limit domestic surveillance using the foreign intelligence excuse, which largely reduced the then-building pressure on the Court to resolve that issue. The loosening of FISA under the FISA Amendments Act and the subsequent mass surveillance means that the pressure is likely to return.

I wouldn't say US v. US District Court is a dead letter now. I would say that we are reaching the point where how the Supreme Court decides the issue it deferred then will determine whether it becomes a dead letter.

[tptacek]

You mean like in Hamdi?