What is Digg?101 Comments
- MasteRR, on 10/10/2007, -2/+135Judge Victor Marrero is a true patriot.
- littlebylittle, on 10/10/2007, -2/+98Strike down the steaming pile of ***** in its entirety.
- UglieJosh, on 10/10/2007, -2/+64Feels so good to Digg a story about civil rights being UPHELD for a change.
Maybe there is a little hope for our justice system. - GawtMilk, on 10/10/2007, -4/+39Again? Hooray! Six times in two days must certainly be a win for --
Oh, same story. - clockpuncher, on 10/10/2007, -0/+32What? Courts decide arguments about the meaning of laws, how they are applied, and whether they break the rules of the Constitution. You should probably study up.
- WilliamDavis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+27"U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero said the government orders must be subject to meaningful judicial review and that the recently rewritten Patriot Act "offends the fundamental constitutional principles of checks and balances and separation of powers.""
Those ***** in congress knew it was unconstitutional when they voted for it and passed it. They are sworn to uphold the constitution. It'll be nice if they actually try that one day. - tonicboy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+23Spot on headline + accurate topic = STFU
- williamdyer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+23Then ignore it, *****.
- scoobycarolan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20What are you high? Judges review laws as part of the fundamental checks & balances system. They may be the only real power keeping GeeDub & Cheney from crawling right up you ass an making a nest!
- bmfiii, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18It's called judicial review. While it is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, it's definitely a good thing. We need as many checks and balances on congress and the president as we can get.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States - republicker, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17This judge is not a team player(team neocon, brown jerseys, ss on the sleeve). In the coming months, he will surely be murdered by a crackhead, commit "suicide", or get locked up for child porn or somthing similar. Althought this guy is a true patriot, he is just a small speedbump on the road to fascism.
- gcnaddict, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17People who digg clockpuncher down fail at U.S. Law.
- oldhick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15Its just a shame that our elected officials (in both parties) voted this ***** in.
- Inverno, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the court system is there for.
- pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12perhaps you've been watching too much fox news. the aclu has always fought to protect our civil liberties. even when they don't agree with the message they fight for the right to express it.
- BobOki, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Any 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. - republicker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Your a tard.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Making patriotism a law, or more specifically making being un-patriotic illegal? Wow, how did that ***** even get passed in the first place?
- jomunculus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Government = corporations
- yutt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8"...my question is for which country?"
The United States of America. Move to China or Iran if you're afraid of freedom. - agenthamsta, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8It's about damn time. Civil rights are going to crap in the US and if no one stands up and makes things the way they should be, then it'll turn this country into it's own enemy.
- exomni, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9*stands and applauds*
- republicker, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7wtf are you talking about?
- mtjohnson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6You're right. Just like our founding fathers said. You'll always end up getting more freedom AND security if you give up your freedom FOR security.
Oh wait... I think they said the opposite... never mind. - ryannerd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I think most congressmen did not bother to even read the thing. They went by the name of the act -- congressmen do not want to look un-PATRIOTic do they; so of course they voted in favor of the stinking pile of $#!+
- longbow486, on 10/10/2007, -7/+13ACLU..do..good?
me confuzed - ConservoHippie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6And an all-around great guy.
- brstilson, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Enjoy your ban you f--ing spammer
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6In the last 5 year, only 3000 people were killed by terrorism. In the same time probably 5 million died from smoking, 3 million from car accidents and 2 million from heart attacks. Are you spending trillions to make those things go away? No.
They screwed you and stole you money, admit it. - Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Heck, the ACLU also has a legal history of supporting people's right to positively express their religion, but you'll never heard about that from the "OMG ACLU SATAN-ATHEISTS OMG" crowd.
- MrHappy123, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6actually, corporations = government
- ghall, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Yippeee!!! It's nice to see some people still have common sense.
- krebcycle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Even if they read it and disagreed with it they voted for it. It wasn't politically expedient to vote against something so cleverly titled right after 911.
- maxhrk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6your comment is made of pure win.
- dafragsta, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6I used to say that Ben Franklin quote about he who trades liberty for security and I used to think it was a bunch of rhetoric. That was in the Clinton administration, when there weren't such violations, let alone any attempt to wrap them with a patriotic bow. Every piece of privacy violation that has been instantiated under Bush has been handled by the grubby, bought-and-paid-for, special interest serving hands of the Republican congress. I can't even stand the thought that people still support those hypocritical, slimy clowns. They won't even let a common sense Republican like Ron Paul be heard at Republican events and have even blackballed Ron Paul supporters from participating in these events. They have managed to steal elections by tampered ballot counts and denying minority and poverty dense areas of the country with faulty, limited, or in some other way dubiously suspicious voting machines.
Republicans pretend talk about common sense politics. What they really talk about is what they can do to make a comfortable return to apathy and marginally less embarassing politics. The supposed savior of the Republican party doesn't even participate in debates, doesn't think they are even necessary and is banking on his Bush-like good-ol'-boy-folksyness. Then they wrap it all up in an American flag and try to sell it as patriotic.
This is the corrupt country we live in and no one gives a ***** because until someone is at their door to violate their civil liberties, it's not going on in their backyard and it's keeping brown people at bay. Just sad, really. - Nickdotnet, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Liberty FTW
- archimago42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Umm, everyone who uses the internet was being put into these "data bases" . What is the point of living in America if we turn it into China? You are a traitor. Let's all just throw away everything we stand for because 3000 people died. So much for "live free or die".
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Almost none who are actually in power tho...
- Whammo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5And of course the government always obeys it's own courts and laws, right?
- tony23, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Let me get this straight:
The Government CANNOT compel ISP's to turn over customer information without a judge's order or a Grand Jury Subpoena.
But the RIAA can...? - raisputin3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I am an atheist and well, I think the ACLU SHOULD support people's right to religious expression, or any other constitutionally guaranteed right.
- gcnaddict, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5It's not explicitly stated, but the reason it is valid is because Jefferson forgot to contest Marshall's ruling killing the law, thus giving the court approval for the task. Hell, if anyone tries to disagree with Judicial Review, Congress would probably pass an amendment upholding it.
I love it when some clever guy totally owns numbnuts and saves the government 200 years down the road. - ATHEISTinHELL, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Freedom comes at a cost. I don't think the government has listened to my phone calls or looked at my internet searches. If they have they would have to be pretty bored. But they are not allowed to do that without a warrant. If you give up your civil liberties for safety you deserve neither and will lose both. You'll be safe from criminals and terrorist in China. But I be careful of the government if I were you.
- kirrim, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The bad part is that after he ruled, the judge stayed the verdict so the DoJ has time to appeal. That means even though he struck parts of it down, his ruling wouldn't take effect until after the appeal affirmed his ruling... doh...
- ATHEISTinHELL, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3But the judge is apart of the judicial branch of the government and is allowed to overturn laws that are deemed unconstitutional. The whole three branches of the government thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usa
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/teacher_lessons/3branches/1.htm - scrag10, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3nope it's still *****
- letsgopens2006, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Congress did not even read this *****. ( Kinda like they don't read...well anything.)
- clearzen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I just a little faith restored in the Americian government. I hope to see the day soon when this bill is repelled completely. Until then this is a good start.
- tonicboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Your ignorance is astounding. A SIGNIFICANT part of a judge's job is to make new or break old laws. Make sure to focus more on Civics class while you're repeating seventh grade.
- jae1227, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Victor Marrero was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1999 back when we had a real leader as president.
-
Show 51 - 95 of 95 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is