Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

nashville_brook

(20,958 posts)
Sat Jul 6, 2013, 10:46 AM Jul 2013

Did you know John Roberts is also chief justice of the NSA’s surveillance state?

John Roberts is essentially the Czar of Surveillance. For life.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/05/did-you-know-john-roberts-is-also-chief-justice-of-the-nsas-surveillance-state/


Chief justice of the United States is a pretty big job. You lead the Supreme Court conferences where cases are discussed and voted on. You preside over oral arguments. When in the majority, you decide who writes the opinion. You get a cool robe that you can decorate with awesome gold stripes.

Oh, and one more thing: You have exclusive, unaccountable, lifetime power to shape the surveillance state.

To use its surveillance powers — tapping phones or reading e-mails — the federal government must ask permission of the court set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. A FISA judge can deny the request or force the government to limit the scope of its investigation. It’s the only plausible check in the system. Whether it actually checks government surveillance power or acts as a rubber stamp is up to whichever FISA judge presides that day.

The 11 FISA judges, chosen from throughout the federal bench for seven-year terms, are all appointed by the chief justice. In fact, every FISA judge currently serving was appointed by Roberts, who will continue making such appointments until he retires or dies. FISA judges don’t need confirmation — by Congress or anyone else.

No other part of U.S. law works this way. The chief justice can’t choose the judges who rule on health law, or preside over labor cases, or decide software patents. But when it comes to surveillance, the composition of the bench is entirely in his hands, and, as a result, so is the extent to which the National Security Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation can spy on citizens.

30 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Did you know John Roberts is also chief justice of the NSA’s surveillance state? (Original Post) nashville_brook Jul 2013 OP
Finally the meat of the issue! VanillaRhapsody Jul 2013 #1
something you agree with -- or something else? nashville_brook Jul 2013 #10
Recommended. (nt) NYC_SKP Jul 2013 #2
The Deep State is AWESOME! kenny blankenship Jul 2013 #3
Awesomocracy! nashville_brook Jul 2013 #9
FISA judges were confirmed by the Senate when they were appointed to the District Courts FarCenter Jul 2013 #4
You mean, like Roberts? Alito? Scalia? DirkGently Jul 2013 #5
The OP said "FISA judges don’t need confirmation — by Congress or anyone else." FarCenter Jul 2013 #7
I rather think appointment to the FISA court is the point of the OP. DirkGently Jul 2013 #8
oh, I'm so relieved... KG Jul 2013 #6
The Executive branch makes the FISA requests. former9thward Jul 2013 #11
and the technical world we live in has rendered that system dangerously outdated. nashville_brook Jul 2013 #16
Yes, it's been reported several times. Who should appoint FISA judges- Congress? POTUS? KittyWampus Jul 2013 #12
the point is that one person, with a distinct political background owns all this power nashville_brook Jul 2013 #14
Who, in your opinion, should appoint the FISA judges? I am asking you. Who is independent enough? KittyWampus Jul 2013 #18
should be part of a democratic process like any other court -- non-secret nashville_brook Jul 2013 #20
Just wondering......... Ernesto Jul 2013 #13
yes, but not what you'd think... nashville_brook Jul 2013 #15
Exactly!!! hue Jul 2013 #23
K&R suffragette Jul 2013 #17
No conflict there. John Roberts is worse than Scalia. marble falls Jul 2013 #19
I did know that. It hasn't been a secret. MineralMan Jul 2013 #21
Yes I did know, it was posted yesterday! xtraxritical Jul 2013 #22
Hope the truth here shines bright!!! K&R!!! hue Jul 2013 #24
There's a great reply in the comments section to that article... SpankMe Jul 2013 #25
great point about the Senate, and the whole inadequacy of our appointment system nashville_brook Jul 2013 #27
No, I didn't know that. :-( ReRe Jul 2013 #26
That is fucked. eShirl Jul 2013 #28
Recently learned, thanks for reminder. The power they now hold is insane. nt Mnemosyne Jul 2013 #29
It's funny when crap rolls down hill... Rex Jul 2013 #30

kenny blankenship

(15,689 posts)
3. The Deep State is AWESOME!
Sat Jul 6, 2013, 10:50 AM
Jul 2013

Those hair on fire conspiracy theorists who say this kind of stuff needs to be exposed and pulled out by the roots should be the very first to go into the camps!
They would endanger the Awesomeness. In a democracy, that's something we just can't afford.

 

FarCenter

(19,429 posts)
4. FISA judges were confirmed by the Senate when they were appointed to the District Courts
Sat Jul 6, 2013, 10:55 AM
Jul 2013

Besides being appointed to also serve on the FISA court, they are cleared to handle classified information.

 

FarCenter

(19,429 posts)
7. The OP said "FISA judges don’t need confirmation — by Congress or anyone else."
Sat Jul 6, 2013, 11:00 AM
Jul 2013

While it is true that the Senate does not confirm their appointement to the FISA court, the Senate has confirmed them to the District Courts.

former9thward

(32,077 posts)
11. The Executive branch makes the FISA requests.
Sat Jul 6, 2013, 11:52 AM
Jul 2013

Yes the Chief Justice appoints the judges but it is the President than makes surveillance requests to the court. Without those requests the judges would have nothing to do. The FISA court was set up by President Carter in 1978 and every president since then has used it.

nashville_brook

(20,958 posts)
14. the point is that one person, with a distinct political background owns all this power
Sat Jul 6, 2013, 12:04 PM
Jul 2013

indeed, the process should be transparent and democratic according to founding principles.

 

KittyWampus

(55,894 posts)
18. Who, in your opinion, should appoint the FISA judges? I am asking you. Who is independent enough?
Sat Jul 6, 2013, 12:20 PM
Jul 2013

The NLA?

SpankMe

(2,966 posts)
25. There's a great reply in the comments section to that article...
Sat Jul 6, 2013, 01:40 PM
Jul 2013
Let me see if I have this right.
As an Australian trying to understand the US political system, it seems that a judge appointed for life by a President who obtained less than 50% of the national vote, and confirmed by a body wherein California with 30 million people gets 2 votes (the same as Montana with what? 3 million?) can appoint the judges to the FISA Court but a President elected by a clear majority of voters in the country cannot appoint Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau?
What is wrong with this picture in the context of the world's greatest democracy?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/05/did-you-know-john-roberts-is-also-chief-justice-of-the-nsas-surveillance-state/?commentID=washingtonpost.com/ECHO/item/1373123057-243-756

ReRe

(10,597 posts)
26. No, I didn't know that. :-(
Sat Jul 6, 2013, 01:50 PM
Jul 2013

Just when you think things couldn't possibly get worse, they do .

Dayam. Where did America go?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Did you know John Roberts...