Secret FISA Court – Guess Who Appointed All 11 Judges?

[Galraedia]

On Sunday, the New York Times published a report on FISA, the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, that has proved to be a real eye-opener. So far, Americans have paid scant attention to FISA and its machinations, but this might get their attention: Chief Justice John G. Roberts appointed all 11 of the judges on the court and will continue to do so for as long as he is Chief Justice–basically, the rest of his life.

The FISA judges serve for seven-year terms. Ten of them are Republicans. Harvard law professor Cass R.Sunstein has written about evidence that:

…federal judges (no less than the rest of us) are subject to group polarization, which exists when like-minded people go to extremes.

Did I mention that what the court does is done in secret, without review, without checks and balances, without hearing more than one side of a case?

Read more: http://www.liberalamerica.org/2013/07/08/secret-fisa-court-guess-who-appointed-all-11-judges/

[Blue Bike]

1. Lovely. I wonder how Roberts would vote in any NSA-related Supreme Court case

I just wonder.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. Oh, that's just great. GREAT.

WTF?

There is no place in our government for such a court.

Goddamn it.

[Initech]

8. [phone]

[Savannahmann]

3. I know, and I keep asking

Tell me again why so many Democrats are supporting this abomination?

[Blue Bike]

7. Because the current President is a Democrat

Basically.

[Galraedia]

12. Because the people haven't made it their biggest concern

And given the cluster-fuck George W. Bush left this nation, who can really blame them for not making this their biggest priority.

[Demo_Chris]

20. this. nt

[Skittles]

30. because the current president is Obama

they would not support this crap otherwise

[zeemike]

22. Maybe because they are afraid.

That NSA has the goods on them and will reveal that they have been banging the baby sitter or something.
Total information awareness can be a scary thing.

[snooper2]

29. what specifically do you have a problem with?

[avaistheone1]

4. Absurd and maddening!

[magellan]

5. Ten of them are Republicans. That should be all anyone here needs to know. n/t

[HooptieWagon]

25. And the surveillence state proponents support them...

Because Obama is a Democrat.

[whatchamacallit]

6. Cass R.Sunstein is a kook libertarian who openly supported Roberts

[Tx4obama]

9. Duties of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

Other duties of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court...

The Chief Justice also:

Serves as the head of the federal judiciary.

Serves as the head of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the chief administrative body of the United States federal courts. The Judicial Conference is empowered by the Rules Enabling Act to propose rules, which are then promulgated by the Supreme Court subject to a veto by Congress, to ensure the smooth operation of the federal courts. Major portions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Evidence have been adopted by most state legislatures and are considered canonical by American law schools.

Appoints sitting federal judges to the membership of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), a "secret court" which oversees requests for surveillance warrants by federal police agencies (primarily the F.B.I.) against suspected foreign intelligence agents inside the United States. (see 50 U.S.C. § 1803).

Appoints the members of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, a special tribunal of seven sitting federal judges responsible for selecting the venue for coordinated pretrial proceedings in situations where multiple related federal actions have been filed in different judicial districts.

Serves ex officio as a member of the Board of Regents, and by custom as the Chancellor, of the Smithsonian Institution.

Supervises the acquisition of books for the Law Library of the Library of Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_the_United_States#Other_duties

A LIST of all the current 11 FISA Court judges

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISA_Court#Current_membership

The Presiding Judge of the FISA Court is: Reggie Walton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISA_Court#Current_membership

Related DU OPs... here: http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10023188497 and here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023178708

[Tx4obama]

10. We've had Republican appointed Chief Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court for the past 60 years

We've had Republican appointed Chief Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court for the past 60 years.

The last Chief Justice on the Supreme Court appointed by a Democratic president was appointed by Truman: Fred M. Vinson June 24, 1946 - September 8, 1953

A LIST of Supreme Court Chief Justices, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_the_United_States#List_of_Chief_Justices

[Bonobo]

11. Kinda shoots to shit the whole...

"But the program is closely monitored" meme.

[jazzimov]

14. Actually, no, because it is monitored by a Congressional

Committee, and regular reports are required to the Full Congress. Of course, they don't pay attention.

The question is - is this enough?

[Bonobo]

15. Well yes. And also...

Does the said Congressional Committee have any teeth?

[Hissyspit]

18. See Post #17.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2013/07/star-chamber-2013.html

A retired federal judge warned Friday against blind faith in the secret court deciding the scope of U.S. government surveillance. During a panel discussion on constitutional privacy protection in the wake of a leaked Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court decision that revealed widespread NSA data collection, U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner stood up in the audience to counter the statements of conservative law professor Nathan Sales that secret surveillance requests are subject to meaningful judicial review. She cautioned:

As a former Article III judge, I can tell you that your faith in the FISA Court is dramatically misplaced.

Two reasons: One … The Fourth Amendment frameworks have been substantially diluted in the ordinary police case. One can only imagine what the dilution is in a national security setting.

Two, the people who make it on the FISA court, who are appointed to the FISA court, are not judges like me. Enough said.

Gertner, now a professor at Harvard Law School who teaches criminal law and criminal procedure, was a civil rights and criminal defense lawyer before being confirmed to the federal bench in 1993. In an interview with ThinkProgress, Gertner explained that the selection process for the secret national security court formed in 1978 is more “anointment” than appointment, with the Chief Justice of the United States — now John G. Roberts — selecting from a pool of already-conservative federal judges those he thinks are most suited to decide national security cases in secret:

It’s an anointment process. It’s not a selection process. But you know, it’s not boat rockers. So you have a (federal) bench which is way more conservative than before. This is a subset of that. And it’s a subset of that who are operating under privacy, confidentiality, and national security. To suggest that there is meaningful review it seems to me is an illusion.

[jazzimov]

13. Then maybe we need to change the FISA Law?

[Cha]

16. thanks for this, Galraedia

[Hissyspit]

17. Digby wrote about it the other day after the NYT article:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2013/07/star-chamber-2013.html

Star Chamber 2013

by Digby

"The Star Chamber has, for centuries, symbolized disregard of basic individual rights ..." US Supreme Court, Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975)

I suppose that references to The Star Chamber are some sort of cliche these days. It's surely considered to be typically shrill, emo-prog, over the top whining to make such comparisons to what's happening with our secret surveillance state.

- snip -

The 11-member Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, known as the FISA court, was once mostly focused on approving case-by-case wiretapping orders. But since major changes in legislation and greater judicial oversight of intelligence operations were instituted six years ago, it has quietly become almost a parallel Supreme Court, serving as the ultimate arbiter on surveillance issues and delivering opinions that will most likely shape intelligence practices for years to come, the officials said.

Last month, a former National Security Agency contractor, Edward J. Snowden, leaked a classified order from the FISA court, which authorized the collection of all phone-tracing data from Verizon business customers. But the court’s still-secret decisions go far beyond any single surveillance order, the officials said.

“We’ve seen a growing body of law from the court,” a former intelligence official said. “What you have is a common law that develops where the court is issuing orders involving particular types of surveillance, particular types of targets.”

In one of the court’s most important decisions, the judges have expanded the use in terrorism cases of a legal principle known as the “special needs” doctrine and carved out an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of a warrant for searches and seizures, the officials said.

- snip -

That the secret FISA Court is transparent was ridiculous on its face. That it has any "checks and balances" is ludicrous. But with these revelations, those comments enter George W. Bush territory for sheer idiocy.

And there's more, lots more. For instance, the article points out that 10 of the 11 judges on the FISA court were appointed by Republican presidents. And, if you'll recall, they are the worst of the worst:

- snip -

Of course, it's that "rule of law" thing that everyone sees as a get out of jail free card. After all, the FISA Court is legal, right? Who says they can't turn themselves into a parallel Supreme Court and completely transform the Fourth Amendment in secret? It's not as if the congress specifically told them not to do that. It's all their fault.

MORE[p]

[MotherPetrie]

19. We are so screwed

[silvershadow]

21. So really, the new way is, "if you don't like the make-up of the courts just make a whole new court

system?"....Consider this for a moment. No matter the reasons for it's existence, it just simply cannot be that such a construct remains without public oversight and government transparency, even if it's for the good. Because, it just doesn't match up to who we are, nor what we are taught. We are going to have to work this out together, and I have a feeling it's going to be a long slog. Never in the history of the country has so much power consolidated in one man, one side. All legal discussions aside. jmho

[OnyxCollie]

23. "Oversight." -Brought to your attention courtesy of Edward Snowden.

Isn't this a fascinating conversation we're having?

[tex-wyo-dem]

28. Yes, interesting, isn't it...

If it weren't for Snowden spilling the beans, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Of course, that's what incenses the PTB, not to mention many pro securing state DUers.

[frylock]

24. is this a head fake or did you finally eat the red pill?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

26. One thing I keep bringing up is how we focus on the Administration and the Congress,...

...but we often ignore the Judicial Branch of government.

And folks, there are a LOT of judges on the take out there.

Imagine if we had actual journalists in this country.

[glinda]

27. K & R n/t