5 ms·

> None of the judges of the FISA court were vetted by Congress. They were appointed by a single unelected official: John Roberts, the chief justice of the Supre

by md224 13y ago

> None of the judges of the FISA court were vetted by Congress. They were appointed by a single unelected official: John Roberts, the chief justice of the Supreme Court. > Of course, this isn't actually true; every sitting FISC judge was approved by the Senate, since FISC judges are appointed from the federal bench. The original author (Will Wilkinson) seems to be making a rebuttal against that point in his reply here: https://twitter.com/willwilkinson/status/354725080288346112 https://twitter.com/willwilkinson/status/354725080288346112

dragonwriter 13y ago
The rebuttal is technically true but not much of a rebuttal. Congress wrote the rules that makes serving on the FISC and FISCR, on assignment by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, part of the duties of judges of the district and circuit courts, and the Senate was aware of those rules when it confirms judges to those courts. So, with the possible theoretical exception of any FISC and FISCR judges who were confirmed to their current district or circuit court seats before FISA was adopted in 1978 -- there aren't any actual examples now, though obviously there have been some in the past, and there aren't new opportunities being created -- all FISC and FISCR judges were appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to a position from which availability for additional assignment to the FISC and/or FISCR was, under law at the time of their appointment, part of the position.
- makomk 13y ago
  There are currently over 600 district court judges compared to a total of 11 judges assigned to the FISA court. In order for Congress to actually vet FISA court judges, they would have to vet every single district court judge for suitability as a FISA judge, even though it's vanishingly unlikely they'd ever serve as one. What's more, if as little as 1 in 100 of the judges they let through were unsuitable, those judges could make up the majority of the FISA court and there's nothing Congress could do about it. Is this really a practical form of vetting?
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > What's more, if as little as 1 in 100 of the judges they let through were unsuitable, those judges could make up the majority of the FISA court and there's nothing Congress could do about it. You seem to be ignoring the fact that Congress wrote FISA and can change it any time they want to, so "nothing Congress could do about it" is, well, completely wrong.
    - jessaustin 13y ago
      You seem to labor under the misapprehension that Congress is capable of undoing its own horrible mistakes. When has that ever occurred?
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > You seem to labor under the misapprehension that Congress is capable of undoing its own horrible mistakes. Its capable, if it wants to. If it doesn't want to, the problem isn't "nothing Congress can do about it". Its that Congress is content with the results and uninterested in doing anything about it.
  - malandrew 13y ago
    Yup. I'm pretty sure that if Congress did in fact vet each person appointed to the FISC, that at the very least there would be a more bipartisan makeup of the judges on the FISC instead of being overwhelmingly Republican. Unfortunately, it still wouldn't be adversarial, but the presence of bipartisanship would at least help prevent groupthink and mitigate the expediency at which the court can damage our democracy.

by md224 13y ago

dragonwriter 13y ago

The rebuttal is technically true but not much of a rebuttal. Congress wrote the rules that makes serving on the FISC and FISCR, on assignment by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, part of the duties of judges of the district and circuit courts, and the Senate was aware of those rules when it confirms judges to those courts. So, with the possible theoretical exception of any FISC and FISCR judges who were confirmed to their current district or circuit court seats before FISA was adopted in 1978 -- there aren't any actual examples now, though obviously there have been some in the past, and there aren't new opportunities being created -- all FISC and FISCR judges were appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to a position from which availability for additional assignment to the FISC and/or FISCR was, under law at the time of their appointment, part of the position.

makomk 13y ago
There are currently over 600 district court judges compared to a total of 11 judges assigned to the FISA court. In order for Congress to actually vet FISA court judges, they would have to vet every single district court judge for suitability as a FISA judge, even though it's vanishingly unlikely they'd ever serve as one. What's more, if as little as 1 in 100 of the judges they let through were unsuitable, those judges could make up the majority of the FISA court and there's nothing Congress could do about it. Is this really a practical form of vetting?
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > What's more, if as little as 1 in 100 of the judges they let through were unsuitable, those judges could make up the majority of the FISA court and there's nothing Congress could do about it. You seem to be ignoring the fact that Congress wrote FISA and can change it any time they want to, so "nothing Congress could do about it" is, well, completely wrong.
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    You seem to labor under the misapprehension that Congress is capable of undoing its own horrible mistakes. When has that ever occurred?
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > You seem to labor under the misapprehension that Congress is capable of undoing its own horrible mistakes. Its capable, if it wants to. If it doesn't want to, the problem isn't "nothing Congress can do about it". Its that Congress is content with the results and uninterested in doing anything about it.
- malandrew 13y ago
  Yup. I'm pretty sure that if Congress did in fact vet each person appointed to the FISC, that at the very least there would be a more bipartisan makeup of the judges on the FISC instead of being overwhelmingly Republican. Unfortunately, it still wouldn't be adversarial, but the presence of bipartisanship would at least help prevent groupthink and mitigate the expediency at which the court can damage our democracy.