What is Digg?39 Comments
- ARKed, on 10/10/2007, -4/+52A judge with a clear understanding of the role and rule of law, a historical perspective, and a huge pair of balls.
- stizz, on 10/10/2007, -3/+36this news made me smile...even if just a little bit
- Sajentine, on 10/10/2007, -3/+26Finally, someone with some actual intelligence came to the party.
- corvin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10If there can be 5 stories about the ipod on the front page at the same time then there can be two stories about the NSLs being declared illegal, as it is very good news.
- nodonoug, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8It is the court's job, has been since the constitution was ratified, to determine whether laws passed by congress are unconstitutional (but only if they are brought to the court...to my knowledge the courts can't actively seek out laws to abolish...people have to bring a suit challenging the law).
- vinnyvenus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Instead of spamming ur site, why not buy a freaking ad space.
- jrizzo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Are you daft man? That is EXACTLY what a judge's job is - to tell the other two branches when they are being idiots. The judicial system has failed this country far more than the executive. THE EXECUTIVE enforces, but not makes, laws.
- corvin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Best news I've heard all week.
- keyboardduder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6reported for spam stern.
- myotive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8"I like you. You have balls ...
... I like balls."
-Team America - mtjohnson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Damn those activist judges, respecting the constitution and whatnot! Don't they know Bush is the decider?
- maino82, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I don't care how many dupes of this story show up on the front page. This is important and the more people that find out about it, and see that the judicial branch is actually doing their job, the better.
- IIIKrazyKiDDIII, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security -Benjamin Franklin
- JDoorjam, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I'm too used to skimming Digg -- I read the title as "NSFW provision in PATRIOT Act struck down by federal court."
- symbolicsorcery, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6When good news like this comes down the wire, we need to express gratitude to the individuals who are standing up for the Constitution and making these decisions. Everyone write an email to the judge and tell him thanks!
- kmac1048, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Well this one explains it a little better. Ars also had the BEST SCO - Novell story posted anywhere. There's some hope that one day me MIGHT be actually free and past all the damage this administration has done here and abroad.
- eean, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison would disagree with you.
- Lennalf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3This is big news! It might be a repost, but it's new to me, and probably new to a lot of other people who check Digg in the morning. I'm glad this was re-posted, or I may have missed it entirely. ***** gets churned off the front page very quickly here, so often reposts *are* worthwhile. Get used to it!
- funkboy27, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I had to login to Digg just so I could digg down your comment! It's people like you that are allowing the current administration to walk all over it's people in the name of "national security". It's a judge's DUTY to make sure that a law is constitutional. Otherwise it's just "a damn piece of paper". Wake up man... wake up.
- BobOki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Any legislation that gives absolute unchecked powers to any single group is against the very fundamentals of the constitution, no matter how trustworthy or compitent the man is charge is. Jesus Christ himself could be president, and he still should not have the ability to do what the Patriot Act allows Bush to do.
The writers of the constitution knew that as time passed, things would change, ideals would change, agendas would change, and as such they included the ability to make changes and additions as needed. However, they also included that those changes much adhear to specific guidelines, to ensure that our country could never become the very thing this country fought to escape. No matter how badly or whatever EXCUSE (and yes, going to war is an excuse) the current administration conjures up to try and usurp all powers and rights should not be tollorated nor allowed. It is bad enough the people of this country have allowed this administration to have the sole power to say what is and is not terrorism or who is a terrorist without proof, but to take away our abilities to be free and safe in our own home FROM our own government, is not forgivable, and the appropriate people should be criminally charged. It is a crime to try and hijack the boat/crew on a military ship, and should be a crime to try and hijack a country as well. - Lennalf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Smacking down ***** laws is a major part of the role of the judicial branch. Look at the some historically significant Supreme Court cases: Dred Scott v. Sanford, Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board of Education, Miranda v. Arizona, Roe v. Wade... etc. Granted, these are all decisions that were made by the Supreme Court, whereas this guy is just some federal judge, but these changes have to start somewhere!
- azAZ09, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That's the part where they diagrammed what the administration was going to to to the US Constitution -- "That piece of paper".
Bee-ow-chicka-wow- wowwww...! - mtjohnson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2See, that's the downside of a democracy: people like this guy can vote.
- amy31415, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1Thank GOD for balls!
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yes, because the court system works that way, and all he has to do is don his costume and leap into action...
- lifeimages, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Richard Jackson
- antdude, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1How do you know he has big balls? :D
- azAZ09, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1After all it's features on ... ARSE Technica
Bee-ow-chicka-wow- wowwww...! - SeethisPass, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0There is no security in the government's intentions for the people. There is only security for themselves.
- gcnaddict, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2because it's so important. Geez, get with the program o_o
- Scotty562, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1I I logged in just to tell you to get over it. Who CARES if it's a dupe. The fact that there is a dupe just means that many more people care about it. Just relax, it is not the end of the world.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2typical activist judges...they should be shot.....
- joe122370, on 10/10/2007, -11/+6DUPLICATE, posted twice yesterday and there are 2 copies right next to each other on the front page
- Skellbasher, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0Yet another digg down as OFN. Can't you people ***** read?
- JESUSREAM, on 10/10/2007, -13/+5this has already been posted you idiots
- MedHead, on 10/10/2007, -11/+2The Patriot Act may or may not be unconstitutional, but it's not the judge's job to make new or break old laws, but only to enforce them.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is