Folks: That you may not like Rand Paul does not invalidate 2nd Court ruling that phone dragnet is unlawful.
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel
.
@emptywheel The implication of your tweet is the ruling addresses your grievances. You can support extension with a clean conscience!1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ArmsControlWonk
@ArmsControlWonk You made a factually false claim. Paul is right: the program has been found unlawful.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel You are conflating bulk collection with the entirety of what is under discussion, and (1/2)2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ArmsControlWonk
@emptywheel Congress could simply make it legal. What he means is that it is unwise. (2/2)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ArmsControlWonk
@ArmsControlWonk No. What he means is it is illegal. Unlawful might be a better word. But it is, in fact, unlawful.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Read his remarks. He uses it in exactly the same war he uses "unconstitutional" -- to mean "unwise."2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ArmsControlWonk
@ArmsControlWonk No. He means it violates the 4th Amendment. 2nd Circuit reserved on that front but implied they believed it was that too.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Ok, well, enjoy your talking point about illegal, unconstitutional surveillance!2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
@ArmsControlWonk It's not MY talking point. The former is the judgment of a circuit court that you are dismissing frivolously.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.