Before I get to the meat of my diary, first things first. I cannot be wrong and Armando be right. That's not how this works. It's just not the natural order of things. With that out of the way, let's do some statutory interpretation!
1. The appellate court ruled that the Section 215 Telephone metadata program is illegal because mass collection of telephone metadata is not permitted under the law as written. Here is the law as written:
2. The Circuit Court, for some unknown reason, completely forgot how to use the word "or." In the first quoted paragraph above, the court fixated on the word "investigation" and ignored the "or" that comes only twelve words later. It's in the same sentence! In the second quoted paragraph above, the court fixated on the words "authorized investigation" and "threat assessment," while again ignoring an "or" that shows up later in the sentence.
3. The word "or" is important in statutes because it allows for multiple scenarios. For example, in a robbery case, a prison sentence may be harsher if the robber "used a gun or other deadly weapon." Does that mean that as long as the robber uses a knife or a bomb, he or she will not face a stiffer sentence? Of course not. The "or" makes sure that all deadly weapons are fair game. Let's look at those paragraphs taking into account our friend, the "or":
That's it. I have explained how the 2nd Circuit got the NSA case wrong in three short paragraphs. Why do I think I'm right and the court wrong? Because I understand what the word "or" does in a sentence. When you use the "or" correctly in interpreting the statute, it obviously authorizes the telephone metadata program. Don't hate the law, change the law.