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.

(Guardian)   FISA judge orders declassification of secret court opinions justifying constitutionality of NSA surveillance programs   (theguardian.com) divider line 166
    More: Spiffy, FISA, NSA, secret polices, constitutionality, declassification, Jameel Jaffer, southern district  
•       •       •

1998 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Sep 2013 at 7:39 AM (30 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



166 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-15 10:50:53 AM

MurphyMurphy: badhatharry: Some say the NSA broke the law. Some say Snowden broke the law. How do we know if someone is guilty of breaking the law? When a judge or jury finds them guilty. That has not happened for either party yet.

Well that's not true in the NSA's case. They have been given legal opinion in their oversight actions. This authority was given to the FISA courts by the Supreme Court.

Snowden's case I think you're right. (I don't follow the circus close enough to be sure there)
All we've had is public decrying from our professional grandstanders

Now for the NSA... what hasn't occurred yet is a challenge of that legal opinion against what ever other legal precedent someone feels should supercede it (Constitutionality I'd assume)


I would imagine so. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
 
2013-09-15 10:55:30 AM

max_pooper: If that is the case, why hasn't congress passed a bill to close those loop holes?


Why the fark would they do that?  They want the NSA spying on us.
 
2013-09-15 11:08:49 AM

badhatharry: MurphyMurphy: badhatharry: Some say the NSA broke the law. Some say Snowden broke the law. How do we know if someone is guilty of breaking the law? When a judge or jury finds them guilty. That has not happened for either party yet.

Well that's not true in the NSA's case. They have been given legal opinion in their oversight actions. This authority was given to the FISA courts by the Supreme Court.

Snowden's case I think you're right. (I don't follow the circus close enough to be sure there)
All we've had is public decrying from our professional grandstanders

Now for the NSA... what hasn't occurred yet is a challenge of that legal opinion against what ever other legal precedent someone feels should supercede it (Constitutionality I'd assume)

I would imagine so. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


You are entitled to your opinions on constitutionality but you have no authority. The judicial branch has deemed these actions constitutional save for any final decision by the Supreme Court. Until that happens or congress passes new legislation the activities of the NSA are constitutional and legal.

This is very basic civics.
 
2013-09-15 11:13:56 AM
Watching a meltdown on Fark is almost as interesting as watching a slow motion fart.
 
2013-09-15 11:14:32 AM

Honest Bender: He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of).


Where in the Constitution does it say you can't have your phone calls screened for certain keywords?

Here's a hint, it's not up to you to decide what constitutes an unreasonable search.
 
2013-09-15 11:15:05 AM
What will be released:

cdn.cultofmac.com
 
2013-09-15 11:22:33 AM

MurphyMurphy: A sane discussion is found in the rational middle as hardin pointed out. You decry people insisting on an extreme interpretation of the events but you are doing the same thing.


Funny, hardin and I have an understanding, yet you insist on an extreme middle while decrying the superficial extremists, same as I.  Are we to debate who is less in the middle than the other?  Who gives a sh*t?
 
2013-09-15 11:28:06 AM

ferretman: What will be released:

[cdn.cultofmac.com image 640x520]


This is all just an elaborate plot to funnel taxpayer dollars to the BPICC (Black Printer Ink Cartridge Cartel) which grew out of the weakening BPMC (Black Permanent Marker Cartel) during the Clinton administration.
 
2013-09-15 11:28:35 AM

Honest Bender: He acknowledged that Snowden's disclosures had prompted a necessary debate: "As loath as I am to give any credit to what's happened here, I think it's clear that some of the conversations this has generated, some of the debate, actually needed to happen.

[i1.kym-cdn.com image 232x223]

WTF?  How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic?  He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of).  You're loathe to give Snowden credit for generating talk over these horrible abuses of power?  The fark is wrong with your brain?  Am I taking crazy pills?


You might not be, but a LOT of people are. My list of 'chicken shiat bootlicking yellow' farkers went up a millionty % after the Snowden thing. Farkers I general found to be reasonable; from non-insane 'conservatives' to general moderates to kinda progressives to raving lefties LOST THEIR MOTHERFARKING SHIAT over this topic.

Maybe it was the perception of Snowden, a semi-hipster looking guy that triggered some visceral unconscious hate. I don't know.  But it was INSANE. The crazy list of reasons to reject anything to do with the release seemed to include:

1) But you give your info to Google/corporations so this is OK!
2) Only the bad guys will be hurt, so this is OK!
3) No one cares what you are doing so this is OK!
4) Privacy is stupid and quaint so this is OK!
5) We already should have known this was happening so this is OK!
6) The PATRIOT Act makes it legal so this is OK!
7) You're paranoid, so this is OK!
8) But Terrorism, so this is OK!
9) FISA court, so this is OK!
10) Greenwald is a hack, so this is OK
11) Snowden's girlfriend is a stripper, so this is OK!
12) Everyone else is doing it too, so this is OK!
13) Snowden should have stayed for a Kangaroo court trial to be tortured like Manning is, so this is OK!
14) Snowden isn't just like Ellsberg, so this is OK!
15) Stazi style surveillance, COINTELPRO, Gulf of Tonkin, Hoover's lists, Watergate etc. etc. are SO yesterday, so this is OK!

And on and on.

/The bootlicking cognitivedissonance is breathtaking.
//And Scary.
///And Sad.
 
2013-09-15 11:30:34 AM

thamike: Funny, hardin and I have an understanding, yet you insist on an extreme middle while decrying the superficial extremists, same as I. Are we to debate who is less in the middle than the other?


An 'extreme middle'?
This is rich.
Am I to take it that merely discussing the topic is an extremist position then?

thamike: Who gives a sh*t?


You do?
 
2013-09-15 11:31:37 AM

freak7: Where in the Constitution does it say you can't have your phone calls screened for certain keywords?

Here's a hint, it's not up to you to decide what constitutes an unreasonable search.


4th amendment.  And I don't decide what constitutes unreasonable. An unreasonable search is one not backed by a warrant issued by a judge, backed by probably cause.

If the NSA wants to snoop my phone calls, then they need to have a reasonable suspicion that I'm breaking the law and they need to swear to that to a judge. The judge reviews their evidence to decide if a warrant is justified.  If he agrees that it looks like I'm breaking the law, THEN the NSA gets to snoop my phone calls (or email or whatever).

That's how it works.
 
2013-09-15 11:32:55 AM

Honest Bender: 4th amendment.  And I don't decide what constitutes unreasonable. An unreasonable search is one not backed by a warrant issued by a judge, backed by probably cause.


Yeah, people used to say the same about DUI checkpoints, how did that one turn out for you?
 
2013-09-15 11:36:45 AM

MurphyMurphy: An 'extreme middle'?
This is rich.


That is the joke.
 
2013-09-15 11:37:49 AM

NewportBarGuy: [...]

Will people get harmed by these two data leaks? I'm pretty sure they have. But the alternative is not knowing and that is a far greater crime.


Perhaps I haven't read well enough into things, but to my knowledge nobody has died because of the leaks of either Snowden or Manning. The charge of putting lives at risk is what the state has claimed each time somebody brings to light documents the government wants kept secret. From the NYT v US Supreme Court majority opinion, "The word 'security' is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment. The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security."

The US government couldn't show that leaking the Pentagon Papers caused any harm to troops or the security of the US. Likewise, with both Manning and Snowden the charge is made that their leaks have/will cause harm, but I have not seen any evidence that has happened.
 
2013-09-15 11:39:36 AM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: 1) But you give your info to Google/corporations so this is OK!
2) Only the bad guys will be hurt, so this is OK!
3) No one cares what you are doing so this is OK!
4) Privacy is stupid and quaint so this is OK!
5) We already should have known this was happening so this is OK!
6) The PATRIOT Act makes it legal so this is OK!
7) You're paranoid, so this is OK!
8) But Terrorism, so this is OK!
9) FISA court, so this is OK!
10) Greenwald is a hack, so this is OK
11) Snowden's girlfriend is a stripper, so this is OK!
12) Everyone else is doing it too, so this is OK!
13) Snowden should have stayed for a Kangaroo court trial to be tortured like Manning is, so this is OK!
14) Snowden isn't just like Ellsberg, so this is OK!
15) Stazi style surveillance, COINTELPRO, Gulf of Tonkin, Hoover's lists, Watergate etc. etc. are SO yesterday, so this is OK!


Anybody who rejects anything about this uncovered info and government oversight is an asshole. Then again, anybody who is both surprised yet inexplicably vindicated by this information is delusional.
 
2013-09-15 11:45:05 AM

vpb: Honest Bender:

WTF?  How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic?  He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of).  You're loathe to give Snowden credit for generating talk over these horrible abuses of power?  The fark is wrong with your brain?  Am I taking crazy pills?

Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional.  That's why you have to be crazy to think Snowden is anything other than a traitor.


You have to be crazy, and maybe not so smart, to think that someone who exposes an egregious Stazi style program you ASSUME to be constitutional is AUTOMATICALLY a traitor without trial of either issue.
 
2013-09-15 11:48:29 AM

freak7: Yeah, people used to say the same about DUI checkpoints


First they came for the Unbelted, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't an Unbelted.
Then they came for the Drunks, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Drunk.
Then they came for the Texters, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Texter.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

Because I had drunkenly parked my car on someones leg.  In a bank.  While texting my account number to Verizon.  And I'm stuck in the windshield.
 
2013-09-15 11:48:44 AM

Tyrone Slothrop: Honest Bender: He acknowledged that Snowden's disclosures had prompted a necessary debate: "As loath as I am to give any credit to what's happened here, I think it's clear that some of the conversations this has generated, some of the debate, actually needed to happen.

WTF?  How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic?  He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of).  You're loathe to give Snowden credit for generating talk over these horrible abuses of power?  The fark is wrong with your brain?  Am I taking crazy pills?

People don't like a snitch.


Are you being sarcastic? Hard to tell anymore.

The next time I find out someone is stealing from you, cheating you, or reading your private email I'll tell them to STFU. Cause otherwise snitchin'!
 
2013-09-15 11:52:58 AM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Are you being sarcastic? Hard to tell anymore.

The next time I find out someone is stealing from you, cheating you, or reading your private email I'll tell them to STFU. Cause otherwise snitchin'!


Snitches get b*tches.

www.mediafire.com

encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com

"Mad b*tches."
 
2013-09-15 12:03:26 PM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: vpb: Honest Bender:

WTF?  How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic?  He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of).  You're loathe to give Snowden credit for generating talk over these horrible abuses of power?  The fark is wrong with your brain?  Am I taking crazy pills?

Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional.  That's why you have to be crazy to think Snowden is anything other than a traitor.

You have to be crazy, and maybe not so smart, to think that someone who exposes an egregious Stazi style program you ASSUME to be constitutional is AUTOMATICALLY a traitor without trial of either issue.


Nobody needs to assume consitutionality. These laws are consititional. Warrant applications have been brought before a federal court made up of judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and not once have any of the judges ruled the law under which these warrants are issued is unconstitutional.

These laws are, according to the judicial branch of United States, within the allowances set forth by the Consitition of the United States of America. These laws can be challenged infront of the final arbiter of consititutionality: the Supreme Court. But they are unlikely to disagree with the FISA court since the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has yet to remove and replace a single judge on said court for erroneous rulings.

The only option is to have these laws changed. That starts with Congress.
 
2013-09-15 12:13:57 PM
I don't like secret courts. Not one bit. I don't like secret judicial opinions relating to important matters of constitutional law, and I especially don't like John Roberts having absolute and plenary authority to appoint members to the FISC.

But a like all that a damn sight more than I liked the situation before FISA was enacted.
 
2013-09-15 12:14:05 PM

max_pooper: The only option is to have these laws changed. That starts with Congress.


I kind of like the way the courts are handling it.  We are actually seeing all the branches of government applying the checks and balances that they were conceived to apply, and because every televisionado has this fixation with reacting to any information they weren't previously privy to as unprecedented concepts, we have dramatic public fallout anytime anything happens.

I'll concede that 2001-2009 might have numbed our ability to see government oversight actually happen and it is ugly but worth it, but hell.
 
2013-09-15 12:18:40 PM

BMulligan: I don't like secret courts. Not one bit. I don't like secret judicial opinions relating to important matters of constitutional law, and I especially don't like John Roberts having absolute and plenary authority to appoint members to the FISC.

But a like all that a damn sight more than I liked the situation before FISA was enacted.


Congress has the power to impeach and remove from office any federal judge. John Roberts may be the only one to select federal judges for that court but he does not have absolute control over its members.
 
2013-09-15 12:24:03 PM

edmo: Honest Bender: He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of).

You're missing the point. They're not violations because they're legal, sanctified by a court. Like it or not they are legal.

Now, if the law is unconstitutional then that's has to work it's way through the courts too. (and should) But no one should kid themselves thinking the NSA just did whatever the hell it wanted. They're hypersensitive to legalities and lean on their lawyers and FISA to give them the green light.

And we could always ask Congress to undue their stupid law.


Please describe this process with regards to a secret court whose rulings are also secret. Who, exactly, will push this through the court system? The people who may have been harmed by this system a) might not know they have been targeted. b) Are precluded from even discussing the matter.
 
2013-09-15 12:25:38 PM

vpb: Honest Bender:

WTF?  How are these people acting like what Snowden did was anything other than heroic?  He dropped the dime on some of the biggest violations of constitutional rights that has ever taken place (that we know of).  You're loathe to give Snowden credit for generating talk over these horrible abuses of power?  The fark is wrong with your brain?  Am I taking crazy pills?

Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional.  That's why you have to be crazy to think Snowden is anything other than a traitor.




SCOTUS has never ruled...
 
2013-09-15 12:28:41 PM
Why does the article not capitalize FISA?  It's not a word.
 
2013-09-15 12:28:41 PM

max_pooper: Alphax: vpb: Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional

Who are they to make such a decision?

They are Presidentially appointed and Senatorially confirmed federal judges.




They are appointed by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS and are not confirmed by Congress.
 
2013-09-15 12:32:13 PM

MurphyMurphy: badhatharry: Some say the NSA broke the law. Some say Snowden broke the law. How do we know if someone is guilty of breaking the law? When a judge or jury finds them guilty. That has not happened for either party yet.

Well that's not true in the NSA's case. They have been given legal opinion in their oversight actions. This authority was given to the FISA courts by the Supreme Court.

Snowden's case I think you're right. (I don't follow the circus close enough to be sure there)
All we've had is public decrying from our professional grandstanders

Now for the NSA... what hasn't occurred yet is a challenge of that legal opinion against what ever other legal precedent someone feels should supercede it (Constitutionality I'd assume)




FISA Courts were established by Congress (due to the Church Commission), not the SCOTUS.
 
2013-09-15 12:32:57 PM

HempHead: max_pooper: Alphax: vpb: Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional

Who are they to make such a decision?

They are Presidentially appointed and Senatorially confirmed federal judges.



They are appointed by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS and are not confirmed by Congress.


Yes they are. John Roberts doesn't grab them up off the street. They are federal judges who have been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Roberts assigns them to the FISA court.

Like I said before, if Congress wished they could impeach and remove from office any or all of the FISA court judges.
 
2013-09-15 12:34:52 PM

max_pooper: BMulligan: I don't like secret courts. Not one bit. I don't like secret judicial opinions relating to important matters of constitutional law, and I especially don't like John Roberts having absolute and plenary authority to appoint members to the FISC.

But a like all that a damn sight more than I liked the situation before FISA was enacted.

Congress has the power to impeach and remove from office any federal judge. John Roberts may be the only one to select federal judges for that court but he does not have absolute control over its members.




Congress cannot remove a FISA Judge because Congress is not allowed to read any of their rulings.
 
2013-09-15 12:35:54 PM

HempHead: max_pooper: Alphax: vpb: Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional

Who are they to make such a decision?

They are Presidentially appointed and Senatorially confirmed federal judges.

They are appointed by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS and are not confirmed by Congress.


Federal judges are appointed by the POTUS and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

Wabbit season.
 
2013-09-15 12:36:07 PM

HempHead: max_pooper: BMulligan: I don't like secret courts. Not one bit. I don't like secret judicial opinions relating to important matters of constitutional law, and I especially don't like John Roberts having absolute and plenary authority to appoint members to the FISC.

But a like all that a damn sight more than I liked the situation before FISA was enacted.

Congress has the power to impeach and remove from office any federal judge. John Roberts may be the only one to select federal judges for that court but he does not have absolute control over its members.



Congress cannot remove a FISA Judge because Congress is not allowed to read any of their rulings.


There are members of congress with security clearence. That still doesn't matter. Congress can still impeach and remove from office any federal judge.
 
2013-09-15 12:36:49 PM

max_pooper: HempHead: max_pooper: Alphax: vpb: Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional

Who are they to make such a decision?

They are Presidentially appointed and Senatorially confirmed federal judges.

They are appointed by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS and are not confirmed by Congress.

Yes they are. John Roberts doesn't grab them up off the street. They are federal judges who have been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Roberts assigns them to the FISA court.

Like I said before, if Congress wished they could impeach and remove from office any or all of the FISA court judges.


Do we have a list of the FISC judges? If I had to bet a dollar, I'd guess they are predominantly right wing, authoritarian  jerkfaces.
 
2013-09-15 12:38:26 PM

King Something: Next week's headline: FISA judge found dead from multiple self-inflicted gunshot wounds to the back of the head from a double-action revolver and/or bolt-action rifle.


Please. If the NSA had that power the judge would be found dead in a Russian back alley next to the corpses of Snowden, Greenwald, his spouse and a Russian tranny hooker after a game of spin the botttle gone horribly wrong.
 
2013-09-15 12:39:06 PM

max_pooper: HempHead: max_pooper: Alphax: vpb: Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional

Who are they to make such a decision?

They are Presidentially appointed and Senatorially confirmed federal judges.

They are appointed by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS and are not confirmed by Congress.

Yes they are. John Roberts doesn't grab them up off the street. They are federal judges who have been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Roberts assigns them to the FISA court.

Like I said before, if Congress wished they could impeach and remove from office any or all of the FISA court judges.




Congress does not confirm their appointment to FISA(hence why the judges are all Republicans sans one). Congress confirms all judicial appointments except for the FISA Court, even to SCOTUS. Rand Paul has introduced a bill to allow Congress to do this.

Congress cannot read the FISA court rulings, ergo cannot impeach them.
 
2013-09-15 12:39:55 PM

max_pooper: BMulligan: I don't like secret courts. Not one bit. I don't like secret judicial opinions relating to important matters of constitutional law, and I especially don't like John Roberts having absolute and plenary authority to appoint members to the FISC.

But a like all that a damn sight more than I liked the situation before FISA was enacted.

Congress has the power to impeach and remove from office any federal judge. John Roberts may be the only one to select federal judges for that court but he does not have absolute control over its members.


That's true, and of course Roberts is limited in his appointment power to duly appointed and confirmed federal judges. Otherwise, though, his authority is plenary and not subject to review.
 
2013-09-15 12:40:49 PM

max_pooper: HempHead: max_pooper: BMulligan: I don't like secret courts. Not one bit. I don't like secret judicial opinions relating to important matters of constitutional law, and I especially don't like John Roberts having absolute and plenary authority to appoint members to the FISC.

But a like all that a damn sight more than I liked the situation before FISA was enacted.

Congress has the power to impeach and remove from office any federal judge. John Roberts may be the only one to select federal judges for that court but he does not have absolute control over its members.

Congress cannot remove a FISA Judge because Congress is not allowed to read any of their rulings.

There are members of congress with security clearence. That still doesn't matter. Congress can still impeach and remove from office any federal judge.




All of Congress votes to impeach and a trial is held in the Senate. With everything being secret, there cannot be a vote or trial.
 
2013-09-15 12:42:08 PM

Evil High Priest: max_pooper: HempHead: max_pooper: Alphax: vpb: Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional

Who are they to make such a decision?

They are Presidentially appointed and Senatorially confirmed federal judges.

They are appointed by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS and are not confirmed by Congress.

Yes they are. John Roberts doesn't grab them up off the street. They are federal judges who have been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Roberts assigns them to the FISA court.

Like I said before, if Congress wished they could impeach and remove from office any or all of the FISA court judges.

Do we have a list of the FISC judges? If I had to bet a dollar, I'd guess they are predominantly right wing, authoritarian  jerkfaces.


If I'm not mistaken, I believe that something like ten out of eleven were originally elevated to the federal bench by Republican presidents.
 
2013-09-15 12:44:07 PM

BMulligan: If I'm not mistaken, I believe that something like ten out of eleven were originally elevated to the federal bench by Republican presidents.


This is my surprised face.
 
2013-09-15 12:44:12 PM

thamike: HempHead: max_pooper: Alphax: vpb: Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional

Who are they to make such a decision?

They are Presidentially appointed and Senatorially confirmed federal judges.

They are appointed by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS and are not confirmed by Congress.

Federal judges are appointed by the POTUS and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

Wabbit season.





When the facts don't work, use character assassination. Works on FoxNews.

Snowden is Ghey.
 
2013-09-15 12:45:11 PM

HempHead: max_pooper: HempHead: max_pooper: Alphax: vpb: Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional

Who are they to make such a decision?

They are Presidentially appointed and Senatorially confirmed federal judges.

They are appointed by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS and are not confirmed by Congress.

Yes they are. John Roberts doesn't grab them up off the street. They are federal judges who have been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Roberts assigns them to the FISA court.

Like I said before, if Congress wished they could impeach and remove from office any or all of the FISA court judges.



Congress does not confirm their appointment to FISA(hence why the judges are all Republicans sans one). Congress confirms all judicial appointments except for the FISA Court, even to SCOTUS. Rand Paul has introduced a bill to allow Congress to do this.

Congress cannot read the FISA court rulings, ergo cannot impeach them.


Senate does confirm all federal judges, period. There is not a single FISA court judge who was not appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. You can look them up, they are all listed on Wikipedia.

Congress can impeach and remove from office any federal civil officer on the grounds of "treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors." They don't need to be privy to the details of their rulings.
 
2013-09-15 12:47:15 PM

HempHead: max_pooper: HempHead: max_pooper: Alphax: vpb: Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional

Who are they to make such a decision?

They are Presidentially appointed and Senatorially confirmed federal judges.

They are appointed by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS and are not confirmed by Congress.

Yes they are. John Roberts doesn't grab them up off the street. They are federal judges who have been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Roberts assigns them to the FISA court.

Like I said before, if Congress wished they could impeach and remove from office any or all of the FISA court judges.



Congress does not confirm their appointment to FISA(hence why the judges are all Republicans sans one). Congress confirms all judicial appointments except for the FISA Court, even to SCOTUS. Rand Paul has introduced a bill to allow Congress to do this.

Congress cannot read the FISA court rulings, ergo cannot impeach them.


What makes you think that there is any connection between the contents of FISC opinions and the possibility of impeachment? The two subjects are unrelated. In fact, judges should virtually never be subject to removal based on the contents of their decisions. A ruling with which one disagrees isn't a high crime or misdemeanor.
 
2013-09-15 12:48:11 PM

HempHead: max_pooper: BMulligan: I don't like secret courts. Not one bit. I don't like secret judicial opinions relating to important matters of constitutional law, and I especially don't like John Roberts having absolute and plenary authority to appoint members to the FISC.

But a like all that a damn sight more than I liked the situation before FISA was enacted.

Congress has the power to impeach and remove from office any federal judge. John Roberts may be the only one to select federal judges for that court but he does not have absolute control over its members.

Congress cannot remove a FISA Judge because Congress is not allowed to read any of their rulings.


Sure they can.  You've completely botched what you are trying to say.  Congress abdicated their ability to effectively police the FISA because they told them "No, don't tell us" but they most certainly can remove any FISA judge they want at any time.

Had a FISA judge started publishing every request that came into the court you can expect the impeachment trial would have been scheduled, conducted and concluded with the judge being removed in about 5 minutes.
 
2013-09-15 12:48:58 PM

BMulligan: HempHead: max_pooper: HempHead: max_pooper: Alphax: vpb: Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional

Who are they to make such a decision?

They are Presidentially appointed and Senatorially confirmed federal judges.

They are appointed by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS and are not confirmed by Congress.

Yes they are. John Roberts doesn't grab them up off the street. They are federal judges who have been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Roberts assigns them to the FISA court.

Like I said before, if Congress wished they could impeach and remove from office any or all of the FISA court judges.



Congress does not confirm their appointment to FISA(hence why the judges are all Republicans sans one). Congress confirms all judicial appointments except for the FISA Court, even to SCOTUS. Rand Paul has introduced a bill to allow Congress to do this.

Congress cannot read the FISA court rulings, ergo cannot impeach them.

What makes you think that there is any connection between the contents of FISC opinions and the possibility of impeachment? The two subjects are unrelated. In fact, judges should virtually never be subject to removal based on the contents of their decisions. A ruling with which one disagrees isn't a high crime or misdemeanor.


Please cite the section of the United States Consititution that defines "high crimes and misdemeanors".
 
2013-09-15 12:56:38 PM

HempHead: max_pooper: HempHead: max_pooper: Alphax: vpb: Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional

Who are they to make such a decision?

They are Presidentially appointed and Senatorially confirmed federal judges.

They are appointed by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS and are not confirmed by Congress.

Yes they are. John Roberts doesn't grab them up off the street. They are federal judges who have been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Roberts assigns them to the FISA court.

Like I said before, if Congress wished they could impeach and remove from office any or all of the FISA court judges.

Congress does not confirm their appointment to FISA(hence why the judges are all Republicans sans one). Congress confirms all judicial appointments except for the FISA Court, even to SCOTUS. Rand Paul has introduced a bill to allow Congress to do this.

Congress cannot read the FISA court rulings, ergo cannot impeach them.


Their knowledge of what the court is doing is completely independent of their ability to impeach them.  This is a sign of fuzzy thinking on your part, and what you are being hammered for.  And there are many other reasons why a FISA court judge might be impeached - misconduct, security violations, not approving legitimate requests - all of which would have gotten back to congress rather quickly.

Congress (and by proxy the people) should have more oversight of what goes on in those FISA processes, and as currently authorized, Congress has crippled their ability to control the NSA.  But that isn't what you are writing, even if that's what you might mean based on your emotional restatement of inaccuracies.
 
2013-09-15 12:56:46 PM

max_pooper: BMulligan: HempHead: max_pooper: HempHead: max_pooper: Alphax: vpb: Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional

Who are they to make such a decision?

They are Presidentially appointed and Senatorially confirmed federal judges.

They are appointed by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS and are not confirmed by Congress.

Yes they are. John Roberts doesn't grab them up off the street. They are federal judges who have been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Roberts assigns them to the FISA court.

Like I said before, if Congress wished they could impeach and remove from office any or all of the FISA court judges.



Congress does not confirm their appointment to FISA(hence why the judges are all Republicans sans one). Congress confirms all judicial appointments except for the FISA Court, even to SCOTUS. Rand Paul has introduced a bill to allow Congress to do this.

Congress cannot read the FISA court rulings, ergo cannot impeach them.

What makes you think that there is any connection between the contents of FISC opinions and the possibility of impeachment? The two subjects are unrelated. In fact, judges should virtually never be subject to removal based on the contents of their decisions. A ruling with which one disagrees isn't a high crime or misdemeanor.

Please cite the section of the United States Consititution that defines "high crimes and misdemeanors".


Obviously, there isn't any such definition. But if judicial independence means anything, it means that the executive branch has no power to punish a judge for making unpopular rulings. At the federal level judges enjoy lifetime tenure specifically to cultivate judicial independence, which is why the only tool at Congress' disposal is the blunt instrument called impeachment. It's not intended to be used as a matter of course, nor has it been historically applied in such a manner.
 
2013-09-15 12:57:00 PM

Hoarseman: max_pooper: Alphax: vpb: Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional

Who are they to make such a decision?

They are Presidentially appointed and Senatorially confirmed federal judges.

That make secret rulings and determine the limits of privacy and individual security with decisions that you cannot discuss or appeal.

I understand and agree that we need something like the NSA and FISA as the world we live in is not a nice place. However, that does not mean that the specific forms they have taken are appropriate or constitutional.

The idea of secret courts making secret findings about the constitution is incredibly disturbing.


This.
 
2013-09-15 12:57:57 PM

HempHead: thamike: HempHead: max_pooper: Alphax: vpb: Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional

Who are they to make such a decision?

They are Presidentially appointed and Senatorially confirmed federal judges.

They are appointed by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS and are not confirmed by Congress.

Federal judges are appointed by the POTUS and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

Wabbit season.

When the facts don't work, use character assassination. Works on FoxNews.

Snowden is Ghey.


Okay, sport.
 
2013-09-15 01:01:29 PM

MadHatter500: HempHead: max_pooper: HempHead: max_pooper: Alphax: vpb: Apparently you are taking crazy pills, since the court obviously did find the program constitutional

Who are they to make such a decision?

They are Presidentially appointed and Senatorially confirmed federal judges.

They are appointed by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS and are not confirmed by Congress.

Yes they are. John Roberts doesn't grab them up off the street. They are federal judges who have been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Roberts assigns them to the FISA court.

Like I said before, if Congress wished they could impeach and remove from office any or all of the FISA court judges.

Congress does not confirm their appointment to FISA(hence why the judges are all Republicans sans one). Congress confirms all judicial appointments except for the FISA Court, even to SCOTUS. Rand Paul has introduced a bill to allow Congress to do this.

Congress cannot read the FISA court rulings, ergo cannot impeach them.

Their knowledge of what the court is doing is completely independent of their ability to impeach them.  This is a sign of fuzzy thinking on your part, and what you are being hammered for.  And there are many other reasons why a FISA court judge might be impeached - misconduct, security violations, not approving legitimate requests - all of which would have gotten back to congress rather quickly.

Congress (and by proxy the people) should have more oversight of what goes on in those FISA processes, and as currently authorized, Congress has crippled their ability to control the NSA.  But that isn't what you are writing, even if that's what you might mean based on your emotional restatement of inaccuracies.


One thing - it is misleading to say that Congress crippled their ability to control the NSA. Prior to the enactment of FISA, Congress had *no* meaningful oversight of the NSA, nor did any court. Congress enacted FISA to provide some oversight where previously there was none.
 
2013-09-15 01:11:41 PM

max_pooper: Please cite the section of the United States Consititution that defines "high crimes and misdemeanors".


Trick question!
 
Displayed 50 of 166 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report