xeni — 2014-06-24T16:12:44-04:00 — #1
filthyhabits — 2014-06-24T16:28:17-04:00 — #2
gleep_wurp — 2014-06-24T16:47:48-04:00 — #3
I've seen a bunch of headlines about federal judges issuing landmark rulings.
I don't buy it. Are these rulings distinguishing a new principle that refines a prior principle, thus departing from prior practice?
are they establishing a “test” or a measurable standard that can be applied by courts in future decisions?
Since the supreme court is likely to examine and rule on such cases, no landmark has been set yet at the least.
miramon — 2014-06-24T16:48:33-04:00 — #4
Wonderful! But why couldn't this decision have been made 10 years ago? Why couldn't homeland security and the department of justice provide a recourse mechanism when they first came up with the idea?
ironedithkidd — 2014-06-24T16:57:52-04:00 — #5
Awesome, but DHS denied for years that there was such a thing as the no-fly list, what's to prevent them from lying about discarding the no-fly list? Assuming they don't appeal, of course.
cellocgwisback — 2014-06-24T17:28:44-04:00 — #6
Guess that's the death knell for my secret No You Can't Come to My House list.
But,yeah, why'd it take umpteen years to find a judge who was willing to rule? (tho' it may well be typical legalese Kafkaism -- nobody could sue without standing, so until a group of people could prove they were on the list....)
bwv812 — 2014-06-24T18:22:41-04:00 — #7
They are applying established law to a novel situation. Because the situation was legally novel, and hadn't been addressed before, it could possibly be considered a landmark. But because this is only a trial-court decision, it's binding on exactly no other judge until either a Court of Appeals makes a decision on appeal (in which case it is binding only withing the circuit that decided the appeal) or it goes all the way up to the SCOTUS in which case it will be binding everywhere in the US.
The article said she simply indicated the status quo is not constitutional and that there must be a redress policy put in place. DHS and/or the the DOJ is free to enact whatever policy they desire, and if it is insufficient it may be the subject of future litigation.
anthonyc — 2014-06-24T19:17:18-04:00 — #8
I honestly don't remember - back then, what were the people on the supposedly nonexistant list told when they weren't allowed to fly?
crenquis — 2014-06-24T19:17:59-04:00 — #9
It is now a double-secret-probation list.
rattypilgrim — 2014-06-24T20:55:20-04:00 — #10
I know someone who was told he was on the no-fly list and he was given no explanation.
bolamig — 2014-06-25T02:36:28-04:00 — #11
It sounds like the ruling only requires the government to disclose the non-classified info on people, which obviously will mean that they will classify all information. Keep fighting, EFF and ACLU.
xeni — 2014-06-29T16:12:45-04:00 — #12
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.