Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   One of the reasons the FISA court is such a rubber stamp is because one man, Chief Justice John Roberts, gets to hand-pick all the judges who serve on it. Fark YOU, Ralph Nader   (washingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, FISA Court, FISA, surveillance state, NSA, Brennan Center for Justice, Julian Sanchez, federal bench, United States federal judge  
•       •       •

502 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Jul 2013 at 12:32 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



38 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-08 12:07:11 PM  
To be fair though, the blame is less with nader, and more with the faux-cynical hipsters who voted for him and loudly proclaimed that there was no difference between democrats and republicans because they were both corporate lackeys.

Childish Idiots...
 
2013-07-08 12:29:42 PM  
Well, it's a good thing the Democrats are in charge now and put an end to all of this nonsense, isn't it?

Oh wait...
 
2013-07-08 12:33:19 PM  

Aarontology: Well, it's a good thing the Democrats are in charge now and put an end to all of this nonsense, isn't it?

Oh wait...


they don't get to change the chief judge...that's a life time appointment, and changing the the FISA court make up would take a majority in the house of Representatives, Which they don't have, and a Filibuster-proof Majority in the Senate, which thanks to Joe Lieberman, they've never had since Obama's been president
 
2013-07-08 12:39:26 PM  

Magorn: Aarontology: Well, it's a good thing the Democrats are in charge now and put an end to all of this nonsense, isn't it?

Oh wait...

they don't get to change the chief judge...that's a life time appointment, and changing the the FISA court make up would take a majority in the house of Representatives, Which they don't have, and a Filibuster-proof Majority in the Senate, which thanks to Joe Lieberman, they've never had since Obama's been president


I'm not saying whether or not they can do it. I'm saying they have no desire to do it in the first place.
 
2013-07-08 12:43:05 PM  

Aarontology: Well, it's a good thing the Democrats are in charge now and put an end to all of this nonsense, isn't it?

Oh wait...


Congress could seriously fix this, but democrats don't especially want to be seen as "turning on Obama" and republicans don't actually care(N.B. many democrats don't care either).
 
2013-07-08 12:49:04 PM  
All the Constitution guarantees is due process, it doesn't guarantee the process be just.
 
2013-07-08 12:56:31 PM  
Uh. What impact did Nader have in the 2004 election? You're thinking of 2000, subbro.

/Roberts was nominated in Bush's 2nd term
 
2013-07-08 12:57:33 PM  

Muta: All the Constitution guarantees is due process, it doesn't guarantee the process be just.


That's where "substantive due process" comes in, if you can make the argument. Good luck.

But I've been talking about this aspect of the FISC since I first discovered it (only a few weeks ago, I'm ashamed to say). As mentioned in TFA, only one of the eleven judges currently serving on the FISC was elevated to the federal bench by a Democratic president.
 
2013-07-08 12:58:47 PM  

gameshowhost: Uh. What impact did Nader have in the 2004 election? You're thinking of 2000, subbro.

/Roberts was nominated in Bush's 2nd term


Damn photo op bunny suits!
 
2013-07-08 12:58:54 PM  
Nader got less than half a million votes in 2004. Democrats bungled that one all on their own.
 
2013-07-08 01:00:10 PM  

Aarontology: Magorn: Aarontology: Well, it's a good thing the Democrats are in charge now and put an end to all of this nonsense, isn't it?

Oh wait...

they don't get to change the chief judge...that's a life time appointment, and changing the the FISA court make up would take a majority in the house of Representatives, Which they don't have, and a Filibuster-proof Majority in the Senate, which thanks to Joe Lieberman, they've never had since Obama's been president

I'm not saying whether or not they can do it. I'm saying they have no desire to do it in the first place.


Both sides are bad ... so vote Nader?
 
2013-07-08 01:03:22 PM  

Magorn: To be fair though, the blame is less with nader, and more with the faux-cynical hipsters who voted for him and loudly proclaimed that there was no difference between democrats and republicans because they were both corporate lackeys.

Childish Idiots...


a66c7b.medialib.glogster.com
This

 
2013-07-08 01:08:21 PM  

salvador.hardin: Nader got less than half a million votes in 2004. Democrats bungled that one all on their own.


I believe the argument is that if Nader hadn't caused the swing in Florida that allowed it to go to the USSC to be decided, that Gore would have won in 2000 and Bush would likely not have run in 2004, and therefore Roberts would not have been appointed.

But as I'm not the submitter, that's purely conjecture.
 
2013-07-08 01:09:21 PM  

Aarontology: Well, it's a good thing the Democrats are in charge now and put an end to all of this nonsense, isn't it?

Oh wait...


Umm Obama nor congress can just change the chief justice without a vacancy.
 
2013-07-08 01:10:51 PM  
By the way, why does Nader always get all the blame, when Pat Buchanan, Harry Browne, John Hagelin, Howard Phillips, and "other" all received more votes than Bush's final certified margin of victory?
 
2013-07-08 01:10:55 PM  

Magorn: To be fair though, the blame is less with nader, and more with the faux-cynical hipsters who voted for him and loudly proclaimed that there was no difference between democrats and republicans because they were both corporate lackeys.

Childish Idiots...


What about the candidate who ran away from the exceptional record of the most popular figure in his party in modern history, put a censorship hawk on his ticket, and did his level best not to pretend he didn't have a vastly superior intellect to his opponent? Does he get any blame?

Run the best campaign for your best candidate and stop biatching about other people's choices.
 
2013-07-08 01:11:15 PM  

Aarontology: I'm not saying whether or not they can do it. I'm saying they have no desire to do it in the first place.


You are saying that you think Obama and Democrats like John Roberts as the chief justice?

serious, what are you smoking?
 
2013-07-08 01:11:47 PM  

Corvus: Aarontology: Well, it's a good thing the Democrats are in charge now and put an end to all of this nonsense, isn't it?

Oh wait...

Umm Obama nor congress can just change the chief justice without a vacancy.


I think he's talking about FISA rubber stamping stuff, and how it's up to the GOP House majority to initiate legislation changing that.

/then again I'm about 2 coffees short of waking up
 
2013-07-08 01:15:50 PM  

BMulligan: By the way, why does Nader always get all the blame, when Pat Buchanan, Harry Browne, John Hagelin, Howard Phillips, and "other" all received more votes than Bush's final certified margin of victory?


Because Bush won so he didn't need those votes. Also you listed a group of people so each of them choosing not to have run would have not made a difference like Nader would have.
 
2013-07-08 01:19:22 PM  

gameshowhost: Corvus: Aarontology: Well, it's a good thing the Democrats are in charge now and put an end to all of this nonsense, isn't it?

Oh wait...

Umm Obama nor congress can just change the chief justice without a vacancy.

I think he's talking about FISA rubber stamping stuff, and how it's up to the GOP House majority to initiate legislation changing that.

/then again I'm about 2 coffees short of waking up


Aarontology: they don't get to change the chief judge...that's a life time appointment, and changing the the FISA court make up would take a majority in the house of Representatives, Which they don't have, and a Filibuster-proof Majority in the Senate, which thanks to Joe Lieberman, they've never had since Obama's been president

I'm not saying whether or not they can do it. I'm saying they have no desire to do it in the first place.



Right, but the context we are talking is that Robert chooses those judges and Democrats can't change Roberts as the supreme court judge to that his response was "they don't want to" (because he has been ignoring what everyone is saying and instead just mashing up everything together.)

I know he is getting the whole thing confused, thinking it's all one and the same. You don't have to explain it to me.
 
2013-07-08 01:21:20 PM  
To be fair though, more Democrats voted for Bush in Florida in 2000 than the number of votes that Nader got in the state.

Fark you, Joe Lieberman.
 
2013-07-08 01:22:24 PM  

salvador.hardin: Magorn: To be fair though, the blame is less with nader, and more with the faux-cynical hipsters who voted for him and loudly proclaimed that there was no difference between democrats and republicans because they were both corporate lackeys.

Childish Idiots...

What about the candidate who ran away from the exceptional record of the most popular figure in his party in modern history, put a censorship hawk on his ticket, and did his level best not to pretend he didn't have a vastly superior intellect to his opponent? Does he get any blame?

Run the best campaign for your best candidate and stop biatching about other people's choices.


Oh Gore gets a lot of blame for running a lousy campaign, but in the end, if I chose not to buy the clearly superior product just because it  has a lousy commercial, that's still my fault and my stupidity.  And when My stupid choice affects other people, they have a right to be pissed at me.
 
2013-07-08 01:24:04 PM  

Corvus: BMulligan: By the way, why does Nader always get all the blame, when Pat Buchanan, Harry Browne, John Hagelin, Howard Phillips, and "other" all each received more votes than Bush's final certified margin of victory?

Because Bush won so he didn't need those votes. Also you listed a group of people so each of them choosing not to have run would have not made a difference like Nader would have.


Actually, no. I've corrected the sloppy language in my post which led to your confusion.
 
2013-07-08 01:24:05 PM  

Magorn: To be fair though, the blame is less with nader, and more with the faux-cynical hipsters who voted for him and loudly proclaimed that there was no difference between democrats and republicans because they were both corporate lackeys.

Childish Idiots...


Although last election was good. People went ok Obama is not 100% what I was hoping for but he is doing good and everyone else is a lot worse and they finally all came to the polls and voted even when they weren't 100% happy. Democrats almost never do that, Republicans do it all the time because they never for FOR someone instead they are just voting Republican to vote against the Democrat so they always get a better turn out.
 
2013-07-08 01:25:23 PM  

BMulligan: By the way, why does Nader always get all the blame, when Pat Buchanan, Harry Browne, John Hagelin, Howard Phillips, and "other" all received more votes than Bush's final certified margin of victory?


They each received more of the vote in Florida separately than Ralph Nader did?

You have a citation for that?
 
2013-07-08 01:26:51 PM  

BMulligan: By the way, why does Nader always get all the blame, when Pat Buchanan, Harry Browne, John Hagelin, Howard Phillips, and "other" all received more votes than Bush's final certified margin of victory?


No they didn't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_ Fl orida,_2000#Final_certified_results
 
2013-07-08 01:29:19 PM  

BMulligan: By the way, why does Nader always get all the blame, when Pat Buchanan, Harry Browne, John Hagelin, Howard Phillips, and "other" all received more votes than Bush's final certified margin of victory?


You are aware we are talking about the context of Florida right?

Because only Florida it would have made a difference, because it would have flipped that state and given enough electoral votes for Gore to win?
 
2013-07-08 01:43:54 PM  
I'm saying that Obama resigning the Patriot Act, Congress reauthorizing the FISA law and Obama signing it, coupled with Obama's and other Democratic lawmakers statements about the NSA programs indicates that the Democrats aren't interested in removing the FISA laws or changing them so that only Congress or the Executive can appoint these judges. Or eliminating the spying program itself.
 
2013-07-08 01:48:51 PM  

Aarontology: Magorn: Aarontology: Well, it's a good thing the Democrats are in charge now and put an end to all of this nonsense, isn't it?

Oh wait...

they don't get to change the chief judge...that's a life time appointment, and changing the the FISA court make up would take a majority in the house of Representatives, Which they don't have, and a Filibuster-proof Majority in the Senate, which thanks to Joe Lieberman, they've never had since Obama's been president

I'm not saying whether or not they can do it. I'm saying they have no desire to do it in the first place.


Neither do the Democrats.  Objections to all of this seem to still mainly be coming from the more civil-libertarian oriented wings of both parties.  Also, FISA courts were established by law in 1978, so none of this information is new. And in all those 30 some-odd years the FISA courts have been operating, only .03% of warrant requests from the government have been turned away (there was a Mother Jones article on this green lit a few weeks ago, so it's probably in the FARKives), so it's not like the government has had a problem getting what it wants no matter who is sitting on that bench.  Even if Roberts is hand-picking Republican judges, it certainly doesn't appear to have impeded the Obama Administration in the slightest.  In any case, we have seen over these past weeks that the vast majority of Republicans and Democrats support this system of surveillance they have created.  But let's do away with this nonsense that either party really wants to change it but the other party is standing in the way.
 
2013-07-08 01:55:41 PM  

Nabb1: Aarontology: Magorn: Aarontology: Well, it's a good thing the Democrats are in charge now and put an end to all of this nonsense, isn't it?

Oh wait...

they don't get to change the chief judge...that's a life time appointment, and changing the the FISA court make up would take a majority in the house of Representatives, Which they don't have, and a Filibuster-proof Majority in the Senate, which thanks to Joe Lieberman, they've never had since Obama's been president

I'm not saying whether or not they can do it. I'm saying they have no desire to do it in the first place.

Neither do the Democrats.  Objections to all of this seem to still mainly be coming from the more civil-libertarian oriented wings of both parties.  Also, FISA courts were established by law in 1978, so none of this information is new. And in all those 30 some-odd years the FISA courts have been operating, only .03% of warrant requests from the government have been turned away (there was a Mother Jones article on this green lit a few weeks ago, so it's probably in the FARKives), so it's not like the government has had a problem getting what it wants no matter who is sitting on that bench.  Even if Roberts is hand-picking Republican judges, it certainly doesn't appear to have impeded the Obama Administration in the slightest.  In any case, we have seen over these past weeks that the vast majority of Republicans and Democrats support this system of surveillance they have created.  But let's do away with this nonsense that either party really wants to change it but the other party is standing in the way.


Exactly.
 
2013-07-08 02:43:31 PM  

Corvus: BMulligan: By the way, why does Nader always get all the blame, when Pat Buchanan, Harry Browne, John Hagelin, Howard Phillips, and "other" all received more votes than Bush's final certified margin of victory?

No they didn't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_ Fl orida,_2000#Final_certified_results


According to that link, the final certified margin between Bush and Gore was 537 votes. Buchanan got 17,484, Browne got 16,415, Hagelin got 2281, Phillips got 1371, and "other" got 3028. Nader's total (97,488) was more than any of them, but if Gore could have clawed back just a little bit more than 3% of the Buchanan vote, he would have won. And we know about those fishy Buchanan voters in West Palm or wherever it was.

Corvus: Because only Florida it would have made a difference, because it would have flipped that state and given enough electoral votes for Gore to win?


I'm not at all convinced that this is true. I don't believe that you can assume even 537 more votes for Gore from the pool of Nader voters. I think most Nader voters had an actual, visceral disgust for Gore.
 
2013-07-08 03:08:13 PM  

BMulligan: Corvus: BMulligan: By the way, why does Nader always get all the blame, when Pat Buchanan, Harry Browne, John Hagelin, Howard Phillips, and "other" all received more votes than Bush's final certified margin of victory?

No they didn't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_ Fl orida,_2000#Final_certified_results

According to that link, the final certified margin between Bush and Gore was 537 votes. Buchanan got 17,484, Browne got 16,415, Hagelin got 2281, Phillips got 1371, and "other" got 3028. Nader's total (97,488) was more than any of them, but if Gore could have clawed back just a little bit more than 3% of the Buchanan vote, he would have won. And we know about those fishy Buchanan voters in West Palm or wherever it was.

Corvus: Because only Florida it would have made a difference, because it would have flipped that state and given enough electoral votes for Gore to win?

I'm not at all convinced that this is true. I don't believe that you can assume even 537 more votes for Gore from the pool of Nader voters. I think most Nader voters had an actual, visceral disgust for Gore.


Exit polls showed something like 35% of Florida's Nader voters would have voted for Gore and 25% would have voted for Bush. The rest would not have voted. One of Naders main selling points was getting the Green Party past the threshold for national funding, a goal that appealed to plenty of disaffected but ultimately loyal anti-corporate Democrats (not just the visceral disgust for them). The margin of victory was so preposterously small that just about everything was a "but for" cause, including Nader.

Choosing to focus on Nader, however, proved quite costly in 2004, when Democrats again refused to highlight the genuine foreign policy differences, presenting a Bush lite policy (hoping to get national security cred off Kerry's medals), and attempting to pick up Nader voters by keeping him off ballots. It worked insofar as Nader remorse brought lots of voters back to the party, but it couldn't compete with the huge numbers of new Bush voters that Rove and company generated with anti-gay marriage ballot referendums.

The GOP has the same problem now, focusing on all the little reasons they didn't win, instead of looking at what they did to lose.
 
2013-07-08 03:08:41 PM  

Kuta: To be fair though, more Democrats voted for Bush in Florida in 2000 than the number of votes that Nader got in the state.

Fark you, Joe Lieberman.


Blame Karl Rove.  He's the one that inherited the Atwater legacy of preying on people's fears and lying to the voters to convince them of boogeymen.
 
2013-07-08 03:54:40 PM  

Magorn: To be fair though, the blame is less with nader, and more with the faux-cynical hipsters who voted for him and loudly proclaimed that there was no difference between democrats and republicans because they were both corporate lackeys.

Childish Idiots...


Given Gore chose right-winger Lieberman as his running mate, at the time it did appear there was little difference between them. In one of the debates, Bush and Gore spent more time agreeing with each other than not.
 
2013-07-08 06:13:31 PM  

Magorn: To be fair though, the blame is less with nader, and more with the faux-cynical hipsters who voted for him and loudly proclaimed that there was no difference between democrats and republicans because they were both corporate lackeys.

Childish Idiots...


joatmoaf.typepad.com
Who's the one being childish?
 
2013-07-08 10:08:29 PM  
Aarontology * * Smartest * Funniest 2013-07-08 12:39:26 PM Magorn: Aarontology: Well, it's a good thing the Democrats are in charge now and put an end to all of this nonsense, isn't it? Oh wait... they don't get to change the chief judge...that's a life time appointment, and changing the the FISA court make up would take a majority in the house of Representatives, Which they don't have, and a Filibuster-proof Majority in the Senate, which thanks to Joe Lieberman, they've never had since Obama's been president
===============================================================

By the time Al Franken was finally put into power, Ted Kennedy was in the hospital with a brain tumor. Therefore... the most voting power the democrats ever had was 59, whenever Lieberman was being douchey.
 
2013-07-08 11:25:08 PM  

Muta: All the Constitution guarantees is due process, it doesn't guarantee the process be just.


I guess we just figured out Scalia's Fark handle.
 
2013-07-09 09:38:29 AM  
People here sure do hate an independent judiciary.
 
Displayed 38 of 38 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report