4 comments

• 

  Hans Bader

  10 months ago

  The telecom immunity provision was invoked in today's ruling in Hepting v. AT&T, in which the judges decided to "remand this case to the district court" "in light of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 10-261."
  
  As WIRED notes, "Now the Attorney General need only send a letter to Judge Walker, certifying that each telecom did or did not participate. If they did, the government must show Walker a copy of the legal assurances the government gave the companies. Then Walker must dismiss the cases. . .The EFF . . says it will challenge the constitutionality of the amnesty provision." See Ryan Singel, "Appeals Court Punts on AT&T Spying Case Appeal," WIRED, Aug. 21, 2008, available at http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/08/appeal....
  
  For the reasons given in my above analysis, Judge Vaughn Walker should promptly dismiss the cases against the phone companies, and uphold the constitutionality of the "amnesty" provision.
  reply
• 

  Ryan Radia

  10 months ago

  Is immunity constitutional? Probably. But is it good public policy? Not a chance. Retroactively extending immunity from liability creates unpredictability and decreases the legitimacy of the court system as a vehicle for resolving civil disputes. "We were just following orders" doesn't work for war criminals and it shouldn't work for companies with giant legal teams that could have performed due diligence and figured out that wiretapping absent a valid certification from the AG is against the law.
  reply
• 

  Payday Loan Advocate

  8 months ago

  Like many Americans who make up that growing class of “disillusioned” voters, I watched the latest “town hall”-style TV debate between Barack Obama and John McCain with my expectations held firmly in check. No matter how many direct questions you ask a politician, regardless of their party affiliation, the answers you receive will resemble generalized sound bites. The New York Times described it as “90 minutes of forced cordiality,” and I must agree. While the exchange was “mercifully free” of personal attacks (according to the Boston Globe), the result was that it was free of much of the tension that makes for compelling television. McCain continued to trumpet experience, his “stay the course” stance on Iraq (seriously, he could have been G.H. Bush’s understudy) and his oil drilling policies. Obama continued to criticize Republican policies that he claims have led America into its current recession. If all were based upon the candidates’ performance here, we’d have no idea exactly how either of them would work to avert pending economic catastrophe. A coherent economic proposal is what America needs. Obama’s stance on “predatory lending” – effectively sanctioning payday advance lenders – is not a coherent solution to the real economic problems we face. That’s just a juicy steak to feed the banking and credit union dogs.
  Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
  Professional Blogging Team
  Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
  Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans....
  Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/
  reply
• 

  Payday Loan Advocate

  8 months ago

  On Wednesday, October 14, 2008, the third and final U.S. Presidential Debate took place in Hempstead, New York. According to an average of national polls collected by CNN, Senator Barack Obama went into the debate as the majority’s favorite with an eight-point lead. Sen. John McCain of Arizona attempted to shred the young Illinois Senator’s policies, judgment and character. When Sen. Obama responded with a more critical stance regarding the economic policies of the past eight years, McCain was quick to point out that he was “not President Bush” and intends to enact an “across the board spending freeze,” take a hatchet to unnecessary programs and use a scalpel on the remaining once the dust settled. On the other hand, Obama offered a more conservative sound to the American people, stating he would “go through the federal budget page by page, line by line” in order to close programs that aren’t working as they should. Both presidential candidates proclaim to bring a better change to a broken America and a solution to our economy. However, would they leave or take consumers’ ability to access payday loans where and when it’s necessary? The answer is still uncovered. Although we believe to be living in “the land of the free,” interest groups, such as banks and credit unions, have a different opinion on our freedom to choose. Post Courtesy of Personal Money StoreProfessional Blogging TeamFeed Back: 1-866-641-3406Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.... http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/
  reply