He does sound kind of like a stooge. The process of denying standing to plaintiffs because the process is itself secret, and so they cannot prove to have been effected, has been used to great success actually. It was widely feared that the NY court would use similar reasoning to throw out NDAA case. Fortunately that court saw the merits of the case and rule din the plaintiffs favor.
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 1:56 PM, PT <[email protected]> wrote: > > Wow. Jacobs sounds like an asshole. If he can't separate his personal > distaste for the plaintiffs from the legal standing of their complaint, > then he needs to recuse himself if the matter gets sent back to him. > > The government's defense is that the plaintiffs can't sue because no one > caught them in the act? > > Yeah, I don't think that has ever really worked in any indictment. > > That attitude makes it clear that the spirit of the law is being ignored > and that the law is only thought of as something inconvenient that has > to be worked around. > > On 5/22/2012 1:15 PM, Dana wrote: > > > > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/05/supreme-court-to-decide-if-journalists-can-sue-over-warrantless-wiretaps/ > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:351115 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
