5 ms·

I agree with your sentiment, but the Constitution gives congress the power to establish inferior courts.

by jwoah12 13y ago

jasonkolb 13y ago
Thanks... I actually hadn't thought about that aspect of it (that real estate court was still not established by Congress ;) I've been reading up on that a bit since your comment, it's a pretty interesting topic because it touches on one branch's ability to influence another. It's a little troubling that a supreme court justice (Roberts, in this case) has the ability to fill this oversight court with whoever he wants. It seems that needs to be fixed.
- maxerickson 13y ago
  He has to fill the court with federal judges that have been appointed by a President and approved by the Senate. That's a somewhat higher standard than whoever.
  - tracker1 13y ago
    I wish more people understood this... I keep seeing comments about being appointed with no oversight... there was oversight when they were approved by the congress(Senate). If they aren't fit to be on this court, then perhaps they aren't fit to be federal judges.
    - cdash 13y ago
      Perhaps they aren't, I think you would find that to be true in a lot of cases.
    - nitrogen 13y ago
      Perhaps there are people one would trust to be judges when there's a full public record of their proceedings, but not when those proceedings take place behind closed doors with no public oversight.
      - tracker1 13y ago
        My problem is the proceedings taking place behind closed doors and without any real oversight. Especially since DOJ/NSA/FBI have been outright lying to congress.
- Spooky23 13y ago
  That real estate court was headed by someone more like an administrative law judge. Some states allow that sort of thing. In New York, towns and villages have elected justices who go to judge school for 60 hours. They preside over minor cases like traffic and "police court" type matters. One of the more serious issues with the FISA court is that they appear to be only nominally distinct from the Executive. The staff seems to come from the DoJ, for example. I think this reflects the fact that this was until recently a sleepy backwater of the court system. I wouldn't focus too much on the Chief Justice's ability to appoint the judges. Federal judges are very powerful people, and that power (and the permanence of their position) gives them more independence in terms of judgement than just about anyone.
greenyoda 13y ago
But still, state and local governments are bound by the 14th Amendment's "equal protection" clause[1], so if a city court makes arbitrary and whimsical decisions they can probably be sued for civil rights violations. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause
- 3825 13y ago
  I must be reading this incorrectly because if this is what I think this is then states and local governments cannot discriminate based on citizenship. Please correct me (and sorry for going off a tangent) but doesn't this make what they're doing in Arizona unconstitutional?
  - rohansingh 13y ago
    Yes, that was part of the basis of the DoJ's case there. The Fourteenth Amendment extends protection to all persons, not just citizens.
    - redthrowaway 13y ago
      How does that jive with the US citizen / non-citizen split in what the NSA feels entitled to do? Does that not imply all people are granted 4A rights?
      - sjtgraham 13y ago
        IANAL but I think the constitution only applies to people under the jurisdiction of the US, i.e. in US sovereign territory.
      - superuser2 13y ago
        The government argues (and many lawyers agree) that 3rd party business records are not covered by the 4th amendment and reading them is not a "search." The amendment is very clear on the government's authority to come into your house and look around, and while it seems like it should protect electronic communication, it doesn't (necessarily). It's actually the Wiretap Act that protects telephone calls, not the 4th amendment. But there's no real analogue of the Wiretap Act for things like email and Facebook.

I agree with your sentiment, but the Constitution gives congress the power to establish inferior courts.

by jwoah12 13y ago

I agree with your sentiment, but the Constitution gives congress the power to establish inferior courts.

Thanks... I actually hadn't thought about that aspect of it (that real estate court was still not established by Congress ;) I've been reading up on that a bit since your comment, it's a pretty interesting topic because it touches on one branch's ability to influence another. It's a little troubling that a supreme court justice (Roberts, in this case) has the ability to fill this oversight court with whoever he wants. It seems that needs to be fixed.

maxerickson 13y ago
He has to fill the court with federal judges that have been appointed by a President and approved by the Senate. That's a somewhat higher standard than whoever.
- tracker1 13y ago
  I wish more people understood this... I keep seeing comments about being appointed with no oversight... there was oversight when they were approved by the congress(Senate). If they aren't fit to be on this court, then perhaps they aren't fit to be federal judges.
  - cdash 13y ago
    Perhaps they aren't, I think you would find that to be true in a lot of cases.
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    Perhaps there are people one would trust to be judges when there's a full public record of their proceedings, but not when those proceedings take place behind closed doors with no public oversight.
    - tracker1 13y ago
      My problem is the proceedings taking place behind closed doors and without any real oversight. Especially since DOJ/NSA/FBI have been outright lying to congress.
Spooky23 13y ago
That real estate court was headed by someone more like an administrative law judge. Some states allow that sort of thing. In New York, towns and villages have elected justices who go to judge school for 60 hours. They preside over minor cases like traffic and "police court" type matters. One of the more serious issues with the FISA court is that they appear to be only nominally distinct from the Executive. The staff seems to come from the DoJ, for example. I think this reflects the fact that this was until recently a sleepy backwater of the court system. I wouldn't focus too much on the Chief Justice's ability to appoint the judges. Federal judges are very powerful people, and that power (and the permanence of their position) gives them more independence in terms of judgement than just about anyone.

greenyoda 13y ago

But still, state and local governments are bound by the 14th Amendment's "equal protection" clause[1], so if a city court makes arbitrary and whimsical decisions they can probably be sued for civil rights violations. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

3825 13y ago
I must be reading this incorrectly because if this is what I think this is then states and local governments cannot discriminate based on citizenship. Please correct me (and sorry for going off a tangent) but doesn't this make what they're doing in Arizona unconstitutional?
- rohansingh 13y ago
  Yes, that was part of the basis of the DoJ's case there. The Fourteenth Amendment extends protection to all persons, not just citizens.
  - redthrowaway 13y ago
    How does that jive with the US citizen / non-citizen split in what the NSA feels entitled to do? Does that not imply all people are granted 4A rights?
    - sjtgraham 13y ago
      IANAL but I think the constitution only applies to people under the jurisdiction of the US, i.e. in US sovereign territory.
    - superuser2 13y ago
      The government argues (and many lawyers agree) that 3rd party business records are not covered by the 4th amendment and reading them is not a "search." The amendment is very clear on the government's authority to come into your house and look around, and while it seems like it should protect electronic communication, it doesn't (necessarily). It's actually the Wiretap Act that protects telephone calls, not the 4th amendment. But there's no real analogue of the Wiretap Act for things like email and Facebook.