Quote:
Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
The Supreme Court’s docket entry reads, in full:
Dec 14 2012 Application (12A600) denied by Justice Ginsburg. The application to vacate the order entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit staying a permanent injunction entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is denied. See Doe v. Gonzales, 546 U.S. 1301, 1308-1309 (2005) (GINSBURG, Circuit Justice).
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/12/e...ied-in-hedges/
|
See Doe v. Gonzales, 546 U.S. 1301, 1308-1309 (2005) (GINSBURG, Circuit Justice).”
In the cited Doe decision, Justice Ginsburg — acting then as on Friday in her individual capacity as a Circuit Justice — had declined to put into effect, while an appeals court reviewed it, a district judge’s ruling finding unconstitutional a provision of the post-9/11 “PATRIOT Act” that gave the FBI broad authority to demand electronic communications records for use in anti-terrorism investigations. In that opinion, Ginsburg said that the Court should hesitate to interfere with an appeals court that was proceeding on an expedited schedule to review a ruling against a federal law, and that, in any event, the Court should be cautious when such a law had been nullified in a lower court.
http://www.lawyer-talk.com/showfeed.php?id=564
This has less to do with substance that procedure and the "presumption" of the Constitutionality of laws passed by Congress.
If that heartens you in your pursuit of windmills. FYI, the interpretation of the current status of the legislation that is claimed to be voiding a citizen's or non-citizen's (in this country)
fundamental rights protected by the enumerated amendments will, IMO, be "clarified" by the United States Supreme Court (if not by the 2nd circuit) at least, which will leave in place Senator Feinstein's amendment as being a valid and meaningful addition to the "new" NDAA.
Emergency Motion Denied in Hedges
