Supreme Court lets stand telecom immunity in wiretap case
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court is leaving in place a federal law that gives telecommunications companies legal immunity for helping the government with its email and telephone eavesdropping program.
The justices said Tuesday they will not review a court ruling that upheld the 2008 law against challenges brought by privacy and civil liberties advocates on behalf of the companies' customers. The companies include AT&T, Inc., Sprint Nextel Corp. and Verizon Communications Inc.
Lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation accused the companies of violating the law and customers' privacy through collaboration with the National Security Agency on intelligence gathering.
The case stemmed from surveillance rules passed by Congress that included protection from legal liability for telecommunications companies that allegedly helped the U.S. spy on Americans without warrants.
The justices said Tuesday they will not review a court ruling that upheld the 2008 law against challenges brought by privacy and civil liberties advocates on behalf of the companies' customers. The companies include AT&T, Inc., Sprint Nextel Corp. and Verizon Communications Inc.
Lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation accused the companies of violating the law and customers' privacy through collaboration with the National Security Agency on intelligence gathering.
The case stemmed from surveillance rules passed by Congress that included protection from legal liability for telecommunications companies that allegedly helped the U.S. spy on Americans without warrants.
The Supreme Court doesn't stand for justice. Â It's just another tool in the arsenal of the police state to use in controlling the People.
There is another case that could be even more destructive to our rights...
Â
"A pending US Supreme Court case could ban yard sales and popular online selling websites such as eBay and Craigslist. In 1997, Supap Kirtsaeng relocated from Thailand to attend Cornell University. Kirtsaeng was not on campus long before he realized how much more expensive college text books were in America than his native Thailand.
The industrious young man asked his family to buy a whole lot of books and ship them to him in the United States. Kirtsaeng reportedly made a $1.2 million profit by selling the academic books on eBay at prices which undercut bookstores across the country, Death and Taxes Magazine reports. Wiley, the textbook manufacturer, sued Kirtsaeng for copyright infringement, Market Watch notes.
During the first court battle, which Supap Kirtsaeng lost, the judge ruled that the first-sale principle only applies to items manufactured in the United States. The law basically states that a company or business can only get paid one time for a product, and a customer has the right to re-sell it later and keep the proceeds.
Once upon a time, when most of the items Americans used where actually made here, the law did not spark much controversy. But, if the US Supreme Court upholds the lower courtâs ruling, yard sales and making some extra cash by getting rid of unwanted items online would likely come to an end.
Internet giant eBay is watching the court case very closely. A statement released by the company claims that not allowing items made abroad to be covered by the first-sale principle would adversely impact trade, small businesses, e-commerce, consumers, and jobs in the United States. Since many American-made vehicles have parts that were manufactured overseas, selling old cars to help finance a new one could very well be a thing of the past as well.
The first-sale principle became law in 1908. If SCOTUS does not overturn the lower court ruling, it would be up to Congress to change the law."
http://www.inquisitr.com/356603/supreme-court-ruling-may-put-an-end-to-ebay-craigslist-and-even-yard-sales/
The Bill of Rights is really the defining document of our constitutional republic. The constitution itself is pretty much meaningless to the majority of people. Thats why the the powers that be have been working so hard in the last few decades to make the Bill of Rights null and void. And they're doing a pretty good job of it. Time for Generation X to get out there in those streets and start stirring things up. Going to have to have million man protests though before the masters of the universe take notice and maybe back off.
 @Blindman Actually, the Constitution is critical.  Recall that the Federal government HAS NO (legitimate) POWERS but those GRANTED in the Constitution.  Therefore, if you want to find out if the government is doing something LEGALLY, you only need to look at the Constitution to see if the power to do that thing was granted by the Constitution.  If not, then the action is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Â
So, for example, the Feral Government has no legitimate authority to regulate firearms.  Why?  Because the only mention of arms in the Constitution is in the Second Amendment - which says that the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  But if you tell someone  how, where, when they may exercise a right - you infringe it.  The Second Amendment is the only amendment that includes language that unambiguously states that no infringement is permitted.
Â
The most pernicious Supreme Court case in history is Wickard v. Filburn.  In that case, the Supremes determined that a farmer growing wheat on his own farm for his own use was actually engaging in interstate (between states!) commerce.  This lie has been the foundation for countless episodes of  Feral Government abuse of the Constitution and the People.
Â
One has to believe the Supreme Court justices know what they are doing. Â It is difficult to see such insanity as anything less than treason.
Yet another huge blow to what is becoming a meaningless document-- The Constitution of the United States of America. Â First The Patriot Act, then Citizen's United, and now this. Â Our founding fathers tried to, with this document, protect us from religious extremists (especially Christians) and big government (USA). Â It was a good try guys-- it worked for a little over 200 years but, as always, the power elite have been successful in chipping away at it with fear mongering and the support/ignorance of the marching morons (citizens who don't vote, and ones that do without educating themselves on the issues). Â
Â
And to think, what really gave them the tool they needed to put them over the top was a terrorist attack 12 years ago.  Truly, then did win, and they win again every time we spend another $1 of my tax money in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Â
Â
Good God. Â What a sad day for the USA. Â What a sad Decade. Â What a sad Century. Â Â
@MPS Boy you are brain washed! were in the US Constitution does it say that the government protect people from religion? were does it say in the constitution does it say you have a right to privacy? all it says you have a right to be secure in your home and your papers. basically don't conspire to commit a crime on line. your email goes through countless routers and servers at any given point along the way any one can read it. No privacy.
 @MPS Quit telling the truth... ha! It's painful. I would love to take our country back. I am disgusted by these liberals who continue to change America into a Godless country with only one direction... straight into the abyss. Our founding fathers would have already jumped to guns, revolution and brought their shared country back to "we the people" just a thought.
 @Funky-Munky  @MPS I get real nervous when people start talking about "taking the country back" from the "Godless."
Â
Which version of God would you impose on the rest of us, Funky-Munky?
 @Sutekh  @Funky-Munky  @MPSÂ
God isn't  the issue.
But one might say, "an amoral country". Â When half the people in the country contribute nothing and sponge off the other half - that's immoral and no mention of "god" is required.
 @Sutekh I understand your fear completely... I would impose/ nor oppose No God... each citizen would still be entitled to his/her beliefs as long as they didn't harm another. I use God as example to those who wish to continue discounting there's a God or watering down others religion through court proceedings. Well... I did my best to explain. Probably not very good explanation.. I try.
Gotta love that Patriot Act. What an incredible misnomer that one is. There is nothing patriotic about allowing the government to spy on anyone at any time for any reason...or no reason at all. Thanks just ever so much to the 107th Congress and President Bush for turning the US into a police state.
 @Mikeftm And the average American idiot continues to think...
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Â
I love Big Brother
Â
Bush didn't turn the US into a police state. Â The PEOPLE of America have turned the US into a police state. Â How? Â By accepting the political changes. Â (Note: Â It is the majority of women who are most responsible for the collapse of the USA. Â They continue to demand more social welfare than any system can provide. Â We are now on the cusp of collapse... or beyond it. Â We're like the woman who has driven her car over a cliff and thinks everything is fine - which it is - until she inevitably hits bottom.
@Mikeftm hey they been doing it long before the patriot act we used to pay Great Britain and Canada to do what we are doing now! and Here is a little known fact. Who wrote the Patriot act? one guess. Times Up Joe Biden!
 @Mikeftm You know the scary part.... as long as American's continue to allow this..... it will be too late for us all!
Welcome to the fatherland.
My feelings... I have nothing to hide... I am a lemming in the big scheme of things. I will say the Supreme Court as time goes on will commit Americans to absolute control, privacy invasion and will eventually lead all of us to a paramilitary type atmosphere in America. I have zero respect for the Supreme Court and fully believe they're vile, poison and shredders of the Constitution. God help us.