The coup was a counter-coup. The Iranian PM was the one that overthrew the government, faked an election, dissolved parliament, was ruling by decree, and caused the Shah to flee.
Iran was a pro-Western, pro-American country until we sent the CIA to overthrow their government in 1953 and installed the Shah. If you're going to quote an Israeli PJMedia/Fox News propagandist, you might want to find one with more credibility than Barry Rubin.
The "Horse shit" prefix wasn't needed, at least some of us could identify the content of your post without it.
The government of Iran had been overthrown by the Prime Minister who faked an election, dissolved parliament, and was ruling by decree while ignoring the Shah as constitutional monarch. (You know, the traditional head of government being responsible to head of state?) Not even Stalin faked elections as brazenly as the Iranian PM. The Shah fled for his own safety. The US and UK helped restore the Shah to power, not install him.
Iran was also an ally of Israel but that changed with the Islamic revolution and Iran's turning on the Jewish state as well as the US. The bad blood between Iran and Israel is Iran's doing.
... considering that every Chief Justice since the act of Congress that created it in 1978 has been a conservative (Republican), that may tell you something about the mindset of the FISC. It's certainly not a place to find diverse opinions.
So in your mental map of the universe you wouldn't find a justice appointed by a Republican president voting for something like
If the court found it legal before what would have changed? Nothing. Easy decision for them.
You should probably look into the question of the court forcing the Justice Department to alter applications for warrants. That is far more common than outright rejection. Applications for those warrants are inches thick. Do you think they like to redo them? Do you think they'll just slap some nonsense together just to see if they can slip by? If you think that you probably don't have any insight into the legal system, or the professionalism of judges and lawyers as officers of the court. Why would those jobs be highly competitive and credentialed if you can just slap some nonsense crap together and get by?
So are you thinking constitutional amendment, constitutional convention, a vigorous letter writing / lobbying campaign, or
Is the straw that broke the camel's back for you Citizens United, Obamacare, gay marriage, NSA collecting phone records, or warm beer?
... CIA people
Who are these judges appointed to the FISA court? Is a prerequisite a hatred for America, or is this something they develop once on the bench?
They are ordinary judges that serve on a rotating basis on that court. They are selected by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Hatred for America? How do you think that plays out between findings for gay marriage versus findings that allow continued surveillance against terrorism?
When you find an extra tough, virulent, deadly bacteria, don't let the damn thing get loose!
It would be great if that were true, but it probably isn't in the long run. Children don't have to consent to lots of things that happen to them now. There are other societies that have or have had child brides, so there are obviously social mechanisms to enable that. With diversity and immigration policies brining in more and more people from those societies I wouldn't be surprised if they considerably outnumber the gay population now. That is before you even consider traditional pedophiles. Over time advocates for minor-adult sex will have more political power. Speaking of political power, I hear there is a former Speaker of the House paying millions in hush money over sex with a minor decades ago. Besides, there are 50 years of prep coming to enable it, academicians working on normalizing minor-adult sex now, just as there were people doing that for homosexuality decades ago. In some parts of society, such as Hollywood, powerful people are known as child abusers, and nothing is said. Fifty years ago homosexual marriage couldn't happen. Today child marriage "can't happen," but that isn't likely to remain true as things stand. Standards were destroyed to enable homosexual marriage, they won't magically reappear when needed to stop child marriages.
Hardly activism to support the equal protection clause.
It's activism if you are distorting the meaning and intent of the amendment to reach a desired end by illegitimate means, by intellectually dishonest means.
The Supreme Court did something similar regarding the understanding of the amendment intended to define slaves as full citizens of the US. They stretched that so that anyone born inside the US now is automatically a citizen, even today, so the US is practically unable to control its citizenship that unlike (IIRC) pretty much every other country. Congress's intent was clear, but that didn't stop them.
All forms of group marriage should be legal as well, as should time limited marriages and any other variants people want to come up with. The governments only legitimate role in marriage is as the enforcer of contracts.
So are you in for child brides too? There are people in the US that want that. Actually we'll probably end up fighting that battle in 50 years or less.
Speaking of bull
You should try rereading it, perhaps slower. Maybe then you will catch the rebuke he is giving to other members of the court.
it's a process of refinement to get closer to the original intent: maximization of freedom
The phase you are looking for is Liberty, which had a constraints to it. The US is heading further along the road of license, something abhorred by the Founders. You should really look into the distinction.
But right now we have a serious dearth of serious contenders on the right.
The problem is a lack of serious commentary about the right, not a lack of serious contenders. Pretty much any of the many governors running would be a better overall choice than either Clinton or Sanders. Some of them would be far better.
You might want to read some history.
The states have a poor record on the subject of minority rights. Such as slavery. And segregation. And so forth.
Might I suggest the same to you? The Federal government hasn't exactly always been a shining light itself. How many states waged Indian Wars? Any thoughts about the existence of black regiments in the Army? There may be a few more examples....
You need to read about Westboro Baptist Church. They've already proven the you are wrong. And they did it at the Supreme Court.
I'm pretty sure that 10-20 people doesn't constitute a meaningful portion of the religious experience of the US. And not all government officials are all sweetness and light in their treatment of members of America's religious communities.