Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 134 posts

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

#11

Post by tptacek »

gasull wrote: post #9
tptacek wrote: post #4

Oh, and one more thing: You have exclusive, unaccountable, lifetime power to shape the surveillance state. No, he doesn't. This is a directly, overtly inaccurate claim. John Roberts real exclusive, unaccountable, lifetime powers come from Article III of the US Constitution, which within 50 years of the ratification of the Constitution came to give the Supreme Court the power to review and overturn the laws of Congres…

The key of the article: “It really is up to these FISA judges to decide what the law means and what the NSA and FBI gets to do,” said Julian Sanchez, a privacy scholar at the Cato Institute. “So Roberts is single-handedly choosing the people who get to decide how much surveillance we’re subject to.” Senator Wyden, briefed by the NSA, said that the NSA has a secret interpretation of the law: http://www.wired.com/dange…

I am certain that federal agencies have all sorts of whacked out "secret" interpretations of the laws of Congress. They get to do that because Congress passes janky laws that deliberately delegate authority to the agencies to come up with the specific line item regulations that animate the laws.

Congress needs to stop doing that, across the board. This is also the basis of the "3 Felonies A Week" problem (that, and the fact that that the US has a perverse default of strict liability in criminal law).

But Wyden has exactly as much power to curtail the surveillance state as he does over drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refugee, or over national seatbelt laws.

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

#12

Post by lisper »

tptacek wrote: post #10
andrewljohnson wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Attacking the rhetoric is weak. He can and does appoint judges from his own party and ideology, almost exclusively. He does have the power to re-appoint or not re-appoint said judges at the conclusion of these terms. So, he has been given a lot of power. It's reasonable to point out that congress can get rid of FISA, but it doesn't address the argument being made here in totality.

Klein didn't say Roberts had a lot of power (clearly he does; he's the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court). He said he had exclusive, unaccountable, lifetime power to shape the surveillance state. He has none of those three kinds of power over the shape of the surveillance state. Not one of those words was correct. I'm not nitpicking; Klein is directly, overtly wrong. The quote I chose there? It's the lede of the…

No, Klein is absolutely correct, and you are absolutely wrong. Roberts has the power to appoint FISA judges. That power is clearly the power to "shape the surveillance state." There is no mechanism to review his appointments, hence the power is unaccountable. Roberts alone has this power, hence "exclusive." And until the law is changed, he has this power for as long as he is chief justice, hence "lifetime."

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

#13

Post by tptacek »

lisper wrote: post #12
tptacek wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Klein didn't say Roberts had a lot of power (clearly he does; he's the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court). He said he had exclusive, unaccountable, lifetime power to shape the surveillance state. He has none of those three kinds of power over the shape of the surveillance state. Not one of those words was correct. I'm not nitpicking; Klein is directly, overtly wrong. The quote I chose there? It's the lede of the…

No, Klein is absolutely correct, and you are absolutely wrong. Roberts has the power to appoint FISA judges. That power is clearly the power to "shape the surveillance state." There is no mechanism to review his appointments, hence the power is unaccountable. Roberts alone has this power, hence "exclusive." And until the law is changed, he has this power for as long as he is chief justice, hence "lifetime."

There absolutely is a mechanism to review his appointments. Not only could Congress pass a law recalling any FISC judge, but it could also pass a law revoking Roberts authority over FISC, or abolish the FISC court entirely. There would be fuck-all Roberts could do about it.

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

#14

Post by andrewljohnson »

tptacek wrote: post #10
andrewljohnson wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Attacking the rhetoric is weak. He can and does appoint judges from his own party and ideology, almost exclusively. He does have the power to re-appoint or not re-appoint said judges at the conclusion of these terms. So, he has been given a lot of power. It's reasonable to point out that congress can get rid of FISA, but it doesn't address the argument being made here in totality.

Klein didn't say Roberts had a lot of power (clearly he does; he's the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court). He said he had exclusive, unaccountable, lifetime power to shape the surveillance state. He has none of those three kinds of power over the shape of the surveillance state. Not one of those words was correct. I'm not nitpicking; Klein is directly, overtly wrong. The quote I chose there? It's the lede of the…

As I said, reasonable to point out the inaccuracy of the statement, but then there's a lot of substance to discuss after that.

I think this article adds to the thesis that the NSA apparatus is not a product of democracy. While you can trace its origin to a law the people approved, it's no longer controlled by democracy. At least it wouldn't be if our leaders had their way, and people like Snowden and Ellsberg were silenced.

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

#15

Post by tptacek »

andrewljohnson wrote: post #14
tptacek wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Klein didn't say Roberts had a lot of power (clearly he does; he's the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court). He said he had exclusive, unaccountable, lifetime power to shape the surveillance state. He has none of those three kinds of power over the shape of the surveillance state. Not one of those words was correct. I'm not nitpicking; Klein is directly, overtly wrong. The quote I chose there? It's the lede of the…

As I said, reasonable to point out the inaccuracy of the statement, but then there's a lot of substance to discuss after that. I think this article adds to the thesis that the NSA apparatus is not a product of democracy. While you can trace its origin to a law the people approved, it's no longer controlled by democracy. At least it wouldn't be if our leaders had their way, and people like Snowden and Ellsberg were si…

The FISC apparatus is a product of Congress. Democracy produced an outcome we (myself included) don't like. The majority of US citizens are more concerned about {the Soviets,Terrorism} than they are about NSA "accidentally" reading their emails.

Appeals to "democracy" in discussions like these tend to have a whiff of "No True Scotsman" to them, where "democracy" is defined as the form of government which is subject to the will of the majority but that cannot be captured by any interest we disapprove of. In reality, democracies do insane things all the time.

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

#17

Post by angersock »

tptacek wrote: post #13
lisper wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, Klein is absolutely correct, and you are absolutely wrong. Roberts has the power to appoint FISA judges. That power is clearly the power to "shape the surveillance state." There is no mechanism to review his appointments, hence the power is unaccountable. Roberts alone has this power, hence "exclusive." And until the law is changed, he has this power for as long as he is chief justice, hence "lifetime."

There absolutely is a mechanism to review his appointments. Not only could Congress pass a law recalling any FISC judge, but it could also pass a law revoking Roberts authority over FISC, or abolish the FISC court entirely . There would be fuck-all Roberts could do about it.

Congress could do a great many things--and yet, here we are. I think you have too much faith in our legislative branch.

(Consider the turnout for the briefings on this nonsense a couple of weeks ago--most skipped out to catch flights home.)

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

#18

Post by smalltalk »

bdcravens wrote: post #6
tptacek wrote: post #4

Oh, and one more thing: You have exclusive, unaccountable, lifetime power to shape the surveillance state. No, he doesn't. This is a directly, overtly inaccurate claim. John Roberts real exclusive, unaccountable, lifetime powers come from Article III of the US Constitution, which within 50 years of the ratification of the Constitution came to give the Supreme Court the power to review and overturn the laws of Congres…

there's nothing they can do except to ensure that the next judges appointed to the courts are more congenial to their views. Which is precisely what Roberts can do when he appoints FISC judges. In the same way that the President/Senate can't control the SCOTUS, but they are definitely picking on ideology first and foremost, with some degree of confidence that decisions will align with that ideology.

No. Congress can recall any FISC judge, revoke Roberts authority over FISC at any time or abolish the FISC court entirely.

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

#19

Post by gasull »

tptacek wrote: post #11
gasull wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key of the article: “It really is up to these FISA judges to decide what the law means and what the NSA and FBI gets to do,” said Julian Sanchez, a privacy scholar at the Cato Institute. “So Roberts is single-handedly choosing the people who get to decide how much surveillance we’re subject to.” Senator Wyden, briefed by the NSA, said that the NSA has a secret interpretation of the law: http://www.wired.com/dange…

I am certain that federal agencies have all sorts of whacked out "secret" interpretations of the laws of Congress. They get to do that because Congress passes janky laws that deliberately delegate authority to the agencies to come up with the specific line item regulations that animate the laws. Congress needs to stop doing that, across the board. This is also the basis of the "3 Felonies A Week" problem (that, and t…

I am certain that federal agencies have all sorts of whacked out "secret" interpretations of the laws of Congress.

And because John Roberts apoints FISC judges, he chooses those who secretly interpret the law.

That's pretty much like deciding how to interpret the law. And in secret. What it's actually deciding the law itself. And, again, secretly.

Your latest comment contradicts your OP "No, he doesn't. This is a directly, overtly inaccurate claim."

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

#20

Post by tptacek »

angersock wrote: post #17
tptacek wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There absolutely is a mechanism to review his appointments. Not only could Congress pass a law recalling any FISC judge, but it could also pass a law revoking Roberts authority over FISC, or abolish the FISC court entirely . There would be fuck-all Roberts could do about it.

Congress could do a great many things--and yet, here we are. I think you have too much faith in our legislative branch. (Consider the turnout for the briefings on this nonsense a couple of weeks ago--most skipped out to catch flights home.)

I have very little faith in Congress, but I don't need to in order to make the point I'm making.
Post reply on HN