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
Did you know John Roberts is also chief justice of the NSA’s surveillance state? (seriously)
Did you know John Roberts is also chief justice of the NSA’s surveillance state?By Ezra Klein
The Washington Post
July 5, 2013
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.
The rest: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/05/did-you-know-john-roberts-is-also-chief-justice-of-the-nsas-surveillance-state/
The article goes on to state that one such appointee was Federal District Judge Roger Vinson of Florida, "who not only struck down the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate but the rest of the law, too." Furthermore, "Only one of the 11 members is a Democrat."
Apologies if this has already been posted, or if this was common knowledge. It was news to me.
64 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Thank you Ezra Klein!! 
I'm glad I clicked on it this time. I had NO idea! 
Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023178708
p.s. See Comment #3 and Comment #29 on the link above
Never mind Florida stopping the recount and the Supreme Court appointing bu$h the lesser. It's all Nader's fault.
Hell they love capitalism so much, we can make it into a Family Feud! The winner gets Judge for Life.
I personally think they need to dress like this;
To separate themselves from normal judges.
But then it was the POTUS' unlimited authority that brought about the FISA as a reform. So maybe Congress alone - would be a bit strange, is there anything else like that?
Also it would be interesting to see the reasons it was given to the CJ to begin with. They might be rational. God forbid we should consider those arguments before making up our minds.
quite a few times over the past 2-3 weeks when people have attempted to point out why the whole NSA surveilliance thing is just really not all that cool. But such information has tended to get drowned out by the constant noise of chattering woodchucks.
I appreciate that you've brought new attention to it. Well done. 
For real.
Just because the Chief Justice (a Republican) appointed those District Court judges to the FISA Court and the majority of those judges were originally appointed to the District Courts by Republican presidents it does NOT mean that all of those judges are Republicans.
Here's what I mean...
You have to look at the way that District Court Judges are nominated.
What happens is the two U.S. Senators from the state where there is a District Court vacancy submits a list of names to the President to be considered.
In the states where there are Democratic U.S. Senators the names submitted will be most likely always be liberal/left-leaning,
and in the states where there are Republican U.S. Senators the names submitted will most likely always be conservative/right-leaning.
In states where there is one Democrat and one Republican U.S. Senator the list will be mixed.
So, let's use California as an example 'before' Obama became president - the two Democratic U.S. Senators would have sent Pres Bush a list of names of their choice and those are the names that Bush had to pick from (it is tradition that President's do not pick the list of names, except for the SCOTUS).
And vice-versa in the 'red states'. Currently when there is a District Court vacancy in a 'red state' President Obama has to pick a name off of the list that is submitted by the Republican U.S. Senators of that state.
Bottom line is that by just only looking at which president nominated any particular District Court judge does not give us a clear picture as to if the judge is a Democrat or a Republican.
Each judge would need to be researched individually to see who the two U.S. Senators were at the time that brought forth that name to be considered originally for the vacant District Court seat that they now hold.
Just a thought
We can see what Repubs around the country are doing out in the open. Why would anyone worry what 10 Repub judges on a secret 11-judge court that's completely shielded from any public accountability are doing?
Before FISA, our Constitution placed restrictions on that kind of thing.
But now that the "Centrist" Democratic Party Leadership has endorsed and co-signed the Patriot Act, and the New and Improved NDAA and FISA,
that is pretty much a thing of the past.
[font size=3]The Permanent War Time Unitary Executive is NOW The New Normal.[/font]
Gawd, but I miss the times when we had an Opposition Party.
We could REALLY use on today.
and go back to the POTUS doing whatever he wanted:
Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908, 912-14 (4th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1144, 71 L. Ed. 2d 296, 102 S. Ct. 1004 (1982); United States v. Buck, 548 F.2d 871, 875 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 890, 54 L. Ed. 2d 175, 98 S. Ct. 263 (1977); United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593, 605 (3d Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 881, 42 L. Ed. 2d 121, 95 S. Ct. 147 (1974); United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418, 426 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 960, 39 L. Ed. 2d 575, 94 S. Ct. 1490 (1974); but see Zweibon v. Mitchell, 170 U.S. App. D.C. 1, 516 F.2d 594, 633-651 (D.C. Cir. 1975), (dictum), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 944, 48 L. Ed. 2d 187, 96 S. Ct. 1685 (1976). The Supreme Court specifically declined to address this issue in United States v. United States District Court [Keith, J.], 407 U.S. 297, 308, 321-22, 32 L. Ed. 2d 752, 92 S. Ct. 2125 (1972) (hereinafter referred to as " Keith " , but it had made clear that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment may change when differing governmental interests are at stake, see Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S. Ct. 1727, 18 L. Ed. 2d 930 (1967), and it observed in Keith that the governmental interests presented in national security investigations differ substantially from those presented in traditional criminal investigations. 407 U.S. at 321-324.
, but it had made clear that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment may change when differing governmental interests are at stake, see Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S. Ct. 1727, 18 L. Ed. 2d 930 (1967), and it observed in Keith that the governmental interests presented in national security investigations differ substantially from those presented in traditional criminal investigations. 407 U.S. at 321-324.
