the ACLU's challenge isn't that directly pointed at the existence of the court. It is pointed at saying a citizen's "free speech" right is involved in viewing t

the ACLU's challenge isn't that directly pointed at the existence of the court. It is pointed at saying a citizen's "free speech" right is involved in viewing the court's opinions. It was a stretch, and it failed. The dissenting justices are making it about something the case was not specifically about, the consensus judges don't have absurd opinions either, they looked at what the case was specifically about (does the first amendment have anything to do with this) and said nah. The question wasn't "do other articles of the constitution force us to curbstomp this court out of existence", and if it was there would probably be a different result. If people want a case about the FISC's constitutionality itself, then they need to make a case about that. This case wasn't that. One thing to understand is that this case got so much support because it was the only case they could put their energy on. If there was another or better case, all the motions and "friends of the court" briefs would have gone to that better case. The other cases don't exist because people accept the narrative that there is a big boogeyman this secret court protects us from, and so its always a compromise to try to get "studies" and reviewability done. But the thing about compromises is that they're usually just a long way doing the wrong thing. The original idea was the "right" thing, and compromises are often just the wrong thing and a waste of time. This time, the compromise idea of "lets make up a bill of rights reason why we can review court opinions" failed.