Court Ruling Builds a Barrier Against Challenges to NSA Spying on Americans?

Court Ruling Builds a Barrier Against Challenges to NSA Spying on Americans?
  
Here are Greg Krasovsky's thoughts on this article and its implications:

Should Americans be surprised that U.S. Federal judges -- who are pro-establishment figures that were appointed by the U.S. President for life after being nominated by either the Democratic or Republican parties -- are protecting the U.S. Federal government's unconstitutional spying on U.S. citizens?

If the current political establishment has decided and petitioned (ordered) its representatives in the executive, legislative and judicial branches to have the U.S. Government conduct wide-scale surveillance on Americans (in violation of the U.S. Constitution), then why would U.S. citizens expect federal judges (who represent the same establishment and pursue its agenda within their jurisdiction) to go against the system and protect ordinary citizens from unlawful government surveillance?   
  
As they say, the worst type of tyranny and corruption is the type that's fully "legal", bears the seal of government approval and is protected by the state as lawful activity. 

In this case, the Federal Court System has once more created a hurdle that's almost impossible to overcome for plaintiffs -- individuals whose basic and fundamental constitutional rights have been violated -- a demand that the plaintiff must show proof (legally obtained, of course -- i.e. not from Ed Snowden or other whistle-blowers) of unlawful government surveillance before he can have standing to sue the government in order to protect his rights, stop the unconstitutional surveillance and seek compensation.
  
So if Americans can't rely on the U.S. Federal judiciary to protect their constitutional rights, then where can they seek protection? From the President? From Congress? Does that seem likely if both the executive and the legislative branch are populated and controlled by the same establishment representatives that instituted and supported such illegal surveillance?
  
Basically, as long as Americans continue to elect the same establishment candidates to Congress and the White House -- candidates from the Democratic and Republican parties -- the system will continue to further and protect the interests of the establishment (the less that 1% of the U.S. population and the financial-industrial groups that they work for, own and represent). 

So despite the shocking revelations made by Ed Snowden, the system will continue to do what's necessary to protect its interests on the mass surveillance front through

- Executive Orders (public and secret) issued by an establishment president,
- Laws passed by a Congress controlled by establishment parties and politicians, and
- Federal court decisions written by judges nominated by establishment senators & parties and appointed for life by an establishment President.

In a nutshell, the Judiciary branch of the U.S. government is supposed to be able to police the executive and legislative branches by making sure that executive and legislative action is in full accordance with the supreme law of the land -- the U.S. Constitution.

But if the Judiciary Branch is not elected by the people, but appointed by the Executive Branch, then we don't really have an independent judiciary, especially since federal judges are nominated by (and loyal to!) the same establishment political parties that control the Executive and Legislative branches.

As past State Supreme Court elections have shown (especially in West Virginia), having an elected judiciary isn't a panacea -- elected judges tend to prove their loyalty to those who funded their election campaigns -- money spent mostly on mass election campaign advertising in corporate establishment media to convince the electorate that the establishment candidate will protect the average voter (instead of his establishment paymasters and sponsors). 

With all that in mind, if Americans want to see any meaningful change in government policy, including any stoppage in the erosion of their constitutional rights, then we must

1. Stop voting for establishment candidates in municipal, state and federal elections,

2. Reject and stop the duopoly (stranglehold) of the two establishment parties -- Democratic and Republican -- in the American political system and elections in
   -- all three branches of government (executive, legislative and judicial) 
   -- on all three levels (municipal, state and federal);

3. Stop the Justice Department's control by the Executive Branch by having the U.S. Attorney General elected by the people;

4. Have the Federal judiciary be directly elected by the people, including members of the U.S. Supreme Courts, instead of being staffed by and loyal to the President and the nominating actors (political parties and senators).

5. Stop the control of political campaigns by big business -- through PACs and etc. -- by limiting campaign financing (including of political advertising) to individuals with reasonable limits (such as $5,000.00 per individual contributor).
    
So if we want meaningful change in our state capitals and Washington, then we need to start implementing the above simple and straight-forward five point plan that we can count on the fingers of one hand. 

And since the media is often called the 4th branch of government (the fourth estate?), then we need to make sure that corporate establishment media holding companies do not control over 90% of our mass media resources and brainwash our population into supporting the establishment candidates, politicians and status quo.

Sound good?

If not, then let's keep on doing what we've always done and we'll get what we've always gotten, especially recently -- more erosion of our constitutional rights and more government policy that benefits the top 1% -- the Establishment -- at the expense of the rest of America and, thanks to globalization, at the expense of rest of the world. 

In this case, even ten more Ed Snowdens won't help us.
   
**************
  
"Back in December of 2013, critics of massive government surveillance appeared to have won a victory in challenging the system in a case called Klayman v. Obama. U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon of the District of Columbia stated that the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of metadata from telephones, a clandestine program exposed by Edward Snowden, was probably a violation of the Fourth Amendment."

"However, at the end of August, an appeals court in the D.C. Circuit decided that the plaintiffs did not have adequate evidence that their data had been collected and never should have been allowed to pursue the case. Essentially, that court didn’t state that the NSA program was legal, but it suggested this case shouldn’t challenge the program’s legality."

“I’m not aware of any other situation in law where you have to have the defendant admit what they did before you can even go to court,” Cindy Cohn, executive director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Truthdig. 

   “It would be as if the police couldn’t arrest somebody unless they admitted they committed the crime first.” Cohn and Vladeck both said that the U.S. Supreme Court has previously stated plaintiffs don’t have this kind of burden of proof to establish a court case and that it seems to be a practice reserved for secret spying programs.

“Given what the government has said about the scope of its program, there is certainly circumstantial evidence that exists,” Cohn said. 

    “Many people are rotting in jail right now based on circumstantial evidence, and they never admitted their crime. It’s a double standard [being set up] in these cases.”

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/court_ruling_builds_a_barrier_against_challenges_to_nsa_spying_on_americans