re: #221 HSG

Charles addressed that whopper.

Add blatant misquotes and misrepresentations to your crimes.

The Supreme Court has already addressed FISA and standing in Clapper v. Amnesty International, which of course you have neither read nor understood, and the court also addressed metadata and the Fourth Amendment in Smith v. Maryland, which of course you also neither read nor understood. Both are guiding precedent, but of course you don’t fathom the importance of that.

You read one article in Politico that references unnamed “experts” (an article that also quotes named experts who had doubts about the ACLU’s chances), and suddenly “most experts” say the ACLU has standing even though the article never mentions standing nor quotes anyone about standing. I was the one who brought the standing issue to your attention in a comment.

Here’s the thing about the law, which of course you fail to grasp, as is obvious in your writings that assert how future courts will rule: there are no certainties about a ruling until it’s issued. There are no guarantees. A fantastic example of this is the Supreme Court’s ACA ruling. So many “experts” called that, and it turns out they knew jack squat.

So you’ve assured yourself, without actually reading any caselaw, without ever attending law school, that you know the ACLU will overcome standing hurdles (notwithstanding you have no actual knowledge of the standing stare decisis), and you’re basing this one what? Unnamed “experts” in an article who never even actually mention standing. Sorry “MOST” experts. Wow.

I’ve read Clapper v. Amnesty International and Smith v. Maryland and many other standing and Fourth Amendment cases. I’ve briefed more than a few appeals. Against that background, I believe the ACLU’s chances seem very slim. But that’s not a certainty. I don’t “know” that they’ll win or lose. I wouldn’t shout that from the rooftops — or as you would write, “roooftops.”

But you somehow know better, because of unnamed “experts” in an article (who don’t even mention standing) say “this gives the ACLU standing.”

Wow.

If logic fails were measured on the Richter Scale, I think that would be somewhere between 8.5 and 9.5.

Provide me one credible source, other than the might HSG that says that the Snowden leak does not now give the ACLU and VERY good chance at thier lawsuit gaining standing.