5 ms·

Why is this court even allowed to make such ruling anymore? Take the case straight to the Supreme Court. FISC is a joke that needs to be immediately disbanded.

by devx 13y ago

CamperBob2 13y ago
Yeah, it's not as if the FISA court judges are all appointed by John Roberts himself. Anyone who isn't outraged by this is not only not paying attention, they're just a plain old moron.
- interstitial 13y ago
  Watch the comments on Ars, they won't be all that outraged. Something funny is going on over there. They are learning to love Statism and its philosophies.
- tedunangst 13y ago
  That Roberts, what a jerk. It's not enough for him to rule over one court, he has to go around picking the people in charge of other courts, too. What gives him the right?
- Shivetya 13y ago
  based on Robert's own writings, I do not think he would be terribly upset if they would put the power of appointments back to the Presidency. I for one would like it because it would force the Administration to accept some responsibility for the courts, something it can easily distance itself from now. They currently get all the benefits without the repercussions, going to be hard to make them accept both
rayiner 13y ago
You don't want this to go to the Supreme Court yet. You won't like he outcome. This needs to wait until there is at least an articulable alternate framework for pro-privacy folks to point to. When you're inventing rights out of thin air, as any "right to privacy" justices would be doing, you need more to hang your hat on.
- bediger4000 13y ago
  Do we want this to go to any Supreme Court that includes Justices Scalia and Thomas? Neither appears equipped to handle this kind of problem.
  - aclevernickname 13y ago
    Go read Thomas' dissent in Raich V. Gonzales[1], and tell me whether or not your opinion has changed afterwards. [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html
    - bediger4000 13y ago
      No change. That particular case just happens to hit his "states rights" stance, and since it's a dissent, he can make the dissent without changing how the decision actually goes. Also, he appears to be a bit schizo on the drug issue: http://www.ontheissues.org/Clarence_Thomas.htm http://www.ontheissues.org/Clarence_Thomas.htm But it appears that the appearance of conflict of interest (http://www.thenation.com/article/155499/clarence-thomass-ethics-problems-then-and-now http://www.thenation.com/article/155499/clarence-thomass-eth...) is still with him: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/07/ginni-thomas-groundswell-conflict-interest http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/07/ginni-thomas-gro...
- drjesusphd 13y ago
  > an articulable alternate framework for pro-privacy folks to point to "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."

Why is this court even allowed to make such ruling anymore? Take the case straight to the Supreme Court. FISC is a joke that needs to be immediately disbanded.

by devx 13y ago

Why is this court even allowed to make such ruling anymore? Take the case straight to the Supreme Court. FISC is a joke that needs to be immediately disbanded.

CamperBob2 13y ago

Yeah, it's not as if the FISA court judges are all appointed by John Roberts himself. Anyone who isn't outraged by this is not only not paying attention, they're just a plain old moron.

interstitial 13y ago
Watch the comments on Ars, they won't be all that outraged. Something funny is going on over there. They are learning to love Statism and its philosophies.
tedunangst 13y ago
That Roberts, what a jerk. It's not enough for him to rule over one court, he has to go around picking the people in charge of other courts, too. What gives him the right?
Shivetya 13y ago
based on Robert's own writings, I do not think he would be terribly upset if they would put the power of appointments back to the Presidency. I for one would like it because it would force the Administration to accept some responsibility for the courts, something it can easily distance itself from now. They currently get all the benefits without the repercussions, going to be hard to make them accept both

rayiner 13y ago

You don't want this to go to the Supreme Court yet. You won't like he outcome. This needs to wait until there is at least an articulable alternate framework for pro-privacy folks to point to. When you're inventing rights out of thin air, as any "right to privacy" justices would be doing, you need more to hang your hat on.

bediger4000 13y ago
Do we want this to go to any Supreme Court that includes Justices Scalia and Thomas? Neither appears equipped to handle this kind of problem.
- aclevernickname 13y ago
  Go read Thomas' dissent in Raich V. Gonzales[1], and tell me whether or not your opinion has changed afterwards. [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html
  - bediger4000 13y ago
    No change. That particular case just happens to hit his "states rights" stance, and since it's a dissent, he can make the dissent without changing how the decision actually goes. Also, he appears to be a bit schizo on the drug issue: http://www.ontheissues.org/Clarence_Thomas.htm http://www.ontheissues.org/Clarence_Thomas.htm But it appears that the appearance of conflict of interest (http://www.thenation.com/article/155499/clarence-thomass-ethics-problems-then-and-now http://www.thenation.com/article/155499/clarence-thomass-eth...) is still with him: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/07/ginni-thomas-groundswell-conflict-interest http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/07/ginni-thomas-gro...
drjesusphd 13y ago
> an articulable alternate framework for pro-privacy folks to point to "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."