people who have gone through the same initiation progress and who have learned what it means to live and maintain a Greek life.

So, "Greek life" includes learning to clean a house and taking paddles up the ass? Or just being able to chug a set amount of beers?

illoomnaty Obama muslim nazi communist Kenyan regime

you forgot ebola.

Source

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An agency of the U.S. Justice Department is gathering data from thousands of cell phones, including both criminal suspects and innocent Americans, by using fake communications towers on airplanes, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.

The program run by the U.S. Marshals Service began operations in 2007 and uses Cessna planes flying from at least five major airports and covering most of the U.S. population, the newspaper said, citing people familiar with the operations.

The planes use devices made by Boeing Co that mimic the cell phone towers used by major telecommunications companies and trick mobile phones into revealing their unique registration data, the report said.

The devices, nicknamed "dirtboxes," can collect information from tens of thousands of cell phones in a single flight, which occur on a regular basis, according to those with knowledge of the program, the Journal said.

It said a Justice Department official would not confirm or deny the existence of such a program, saying such discussion would allow criminal suspects or foreign powers to determine U.S. surveillance abilities, but that department agencies comply with federal law, including by seeking court approval.

The program is similar to one used by the National Security Agency which collects the phone records of millions of Americans in order to find a single person or a handful of people.

The Journal cited the people familiar with the program as saying that the device used in the program decides which phones belong to suspects and "lets go" of non-suspect phones.

Although it can interrupt calls on some phones, authorities have made software changes to make sure it doesn't interrupt anyone calling the 911 emergency number for help, one person familiar with the matter said, the Journal reported.

It also bypasses telephone companies, allowing authorities to locate suspects directly, people with knowledge of the program said.

The Journal quoted Christopher Soghoian, chief technologist at the American Civil Liberties Union, as calling it "a dragnet surveillance program. It's inexcusable and it's likely, to the extent judges are authorizing it, they have no idea of the scale of it."

The newspaper said it was unknown what steps are being taken to ensure data collected on innocent people is not kept for future perusal by authorities.

Thoughts?

In a democratic society where legislation should be a direct extension of the will of the people via elections,

Ok. Now how about in America?

Quote from: IcyWind on November 12, 2014, 07:38:45 PM

Quote from: Kupo on November 12, 2014, 07:37:02 PM

Isn't "judicial activism" just a term invented by conservatives for when the court tells them they're wrong?

No. In short terms...

Quote

Judicial activism is the view that the Supreme Court and other judges can and should creatively (re)interpret the texts of the Constitution and the laws in order to serve the judges' own visions regarding the needs of contemporary society. Judicial activism believes that judges assume a role as independent policy makers or independent "trustees" on behalf of society that goes beyond their traditional role as interpreters of the Constitution and laws. The concept of judicial activism is the polar opposite of judicial restraint.

Judicial restraint refers to the doctrine that judges' own philosophies or policy preferences should not be injected into the law and should whenever reasonably possible construe the law so as to avoid second guessing the policy decisions made by other governmental institutions such as Congress, the President and state legislatures. This view is based on the concept that judges have no popular mandate to act as policy makers and should defer to the decisions of the elected "political" branches of the Federal government and of the states in matters of policy making so long as these policymakers stay within the limits of their powers as defined by the US Constitution and the constitutions of the several states.

I'll take a snippet from the dissent in the recent DeBoer v. Snyder case:

Quote

The author of the majority opinion has drafted what would make an engrossing TED Talk or, possibly, an introductory lecture in Political Philosophy. But as an appellate court decision, it wholly fails to grapple with the relevant constitutional question in this appeal: whether a state’s constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, the majority sets up a false premise—that the question before us is “who should decide?”—and leads us through a largely irrelevant discourse on democracy and federalism.

I like that because it sums up every accusation of "judicial activism" I've ever heard of.

I'd say a better case of "judicial activism" would be the Citizens United Case.

Isn't "judicial activism" just a term invented by conservatives for when the court tells them they're wrong?

No. In short terms...

Judicial activism is the view that the Supreme Court and other judges can and should creatively (re)interpret the texts of the Constitution and the laws in order to serve the judges' own visions regarding the needs of contemporary society. Judicial activism believes that judges assume a role as independent policy makers or independent "trustees" on behalf of society that goes beyond their traditional role as interpreters of the Constitution and laws. The concept of judicial activism is the polar opposite of judicial restraint.

Judicial restraint refers to the doctrine that judges' own philosophies or policy preferences should not be injected into the law and should whenever reasonably possible construe the law so as to avoid second guessing the policy decisions made by other governmental institutions such as Congress, the President and state legislatures. This view is based on the concept that judges have no popular mandate to act as policy makers and should defer to the decisions of the elected "political" branches of the Federal government and of the states in matters of policy making so long as these policymakers stay within the limits of their powers as defined by the US Constitution and the constitutions of the several states.

Restraint.

Why?

Nasty is abusing power

Can we at least evacuate the cute Australian men to America before Russia rams them up the butt?

I'll support it when it's not producing nuclear waste

Quote from: IcyWind on November 12, 2014, 04:43:01 PM

The future of this thread.

I see many faggots.

Fixed that for ya boyo.

Quote from: IcyWind on November 12, 2014, 04:37:00 PM

Does Australia have oil?

They're in need of freedom

No, you don't free countries unless they have oil.

You need to get the investment back somehow.

Oh I'm sorry guys.

I thought this was the serious forum.

This is such a serious discussion Icy with all these image posts isn't it? You're a real god mod.

#BiasedMods2014

We'd love to have a serious discussion. However, when you make claims like "Peanut Allergy caused by Vaccines!" and then provide poor sources that amounts to two online forums, a blog, and "VaccineTruth".org - you aren't helping your cause.

So, no. I'm not going to sit in a thread and debate your argument when your sources are nothing more than crap webpages.

Would anyone like to refute my claim instead of posting stupid pictures?

Nah, didn't think so.

Why, when images mocking sad claims is more enjoyable?