Strange bedfellows' forced marriage
by digby
Why do you suppose the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation might be nervous about Larry Klayman taking important, potentially precedent setting government surveillance cases to the Supreme Court? Could it be because he's a conservative nutcase and isn't to be trusted? The good news is that they've asked to join the Judicial Watch case that's being heard in the DC Circuit, pointing out that they have a teensy bit more expertise in electronic surveillance law than Klayman:
On Friday, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation asked to join in arguments set to be held in November on the government's appeal of the first and only judicial ruling disputing the constitutionality of the NSA's program sweeping up information on billions of telephone calls to, from, and within the United States.
The groups asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to allow them 10 minutes of argument time.
The move is the latest step in an effort by the civil liberties organizations to have a hand in as much as possible of the pending litigation related to the NSA's so-called bulk collection of phone data for counterterrorism purposes. In July, the ACLU and EFF joined the legal team for the appeal of an Idaho nurse's challenge to the NSA program. The ACLU also brought a suit on its own behalf that is pending before the 2nd Circuit and EFF has several cases pending in California.
Klayman says they've lost some of these cases so that means he's just as qualified as the EFF. He welcomes their participation but doesn't want to give up any of his time to make oral arguments.
I'm surprised he has the extra time to even do this considering that he's hot on the trail of ISIS terrorists who are holed up in a hotel in Juarez Mexico getting ready to invade Arizona. Not kidding.
Civil libertarians are often strange bedfellows. You're always in a position of having to stand up for the rights of people with whom you disagree. But Klayman is someone to keep an eye on. He's not what you would call a "principled" civil libertarian although he's often on the right side of certain issues. Let's just say I wouldn't put it past him to make a bad argument for political/ideological reasons as part of a longer term strategy. Not that he necessarily is doing that in this case. But his record is very spotty.
.