Page 42 - Understanding Program News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

Because there were not looking for evidence of a legislative intent to create a right to judicial review. Your position is thats already there under the apa. Unless there is evidence of a judicial intent, of a congressional intention to preclude judicial review . Thats exactly right. Thats the presumption created by the apa. The way that your honor articulated it is the way the Supreme Court has articulated it time and again. Thats the governments burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that congress intended to preclude our claims, not our burden to demonstrate that congress intended ...

This contact. Or if you go to the special need inquiry approach, if you look at the program as a result, not just the fact that fifth has information on robust control. Maybe done with the rumt of the queries, very elaborately set out in primary order. That is not, respectfully, and it is now declassified. Not just accepting whatever the government offered but making determinations according to its own statement. That, with these proceeder us, that with a going in this order that improess more restrictions than the government thought at the time. I dont know the ons that t. O. That question. M...

Reactions for compliance issues and the fisc taking testeps in report. That is a general election. You seem to allow in part and properly so, in the next year and a half or so, declassified. She served to assure us that there is not a special needs problem or Fourth Amendment reports. Thats what you let us know. What else havent you let us know . Push it, pull it. More than respect pch. Im not saying that a bad thing but all this stuff that we now know. And we dont know. All the stuff we now know is part of the political reaction to the understanding that this program is in effect. Isnt that s...

So it depends on the intent of all 3 million voters who voted for this constitutional amendment. Thats an analysis thats literally impossible. You cant gauge into the mind of everybody who voted yes for proposition 1. I think thats distinguishable from rumor. And windsor, because the court in those cases didnt engage in the legislative intent of what the laws on their face and said the law on their face are unusual. And thats not the case here. So if theres no further questions, i respectfully ask the court to reverse the District Court. Mr. Murphy, can we go back to the 19th century history w...

So, unfortunately im constrained in what i can say, of course, about it. But what i can say is as in the Amnesty International case and in the Supreme Court, its plaintiffs burden to demonstrate and they failed to do so here, not only because their theory as subscribers of Verizon Wireless, which they cannot substantiate the District Court acknowledged theres no evidence that Verizon Wireless participated, but also because the injury that they assert is not based on the mere collection of metadata itself but the possibility that the government metadata to that compile information about the acv...