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

71–80 of 134 posts

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

#71

Post by lisper »

tptacek wrote: post #66
lisper wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Congress cannot make murder legal. I chose a bad example because murder is generally illegal under state law, not federal law (though there are exceptions). But there are things that are illegal under federal law that Congress has the power to change. Those things are in fact illegal (now) notwithstanding that Congress could change the law and make them legal. Likewise, Robert's appointments are not reviewable (now…

It has nothing to do with state versus federal and everything to do with the core issue here. Congress can't make murder legal because to do so would be unconstitutional.

That is ridiculous. Congress could make murder legal (at least at the federal level) by simply repealing 18 USC 1111. There is nothing in the Constitution that would prevent them from doing that. Murder would, of course, still be illegal at the state level, but focusing on that would be missing the point rather badly. Murder is a red herring. The fact of the matter is that there are things that are not legal by virtue of the existence of federal laws. Congress could make those things legal by repealing those laws, but until and unless it does so those things are illegal. Likewise, the fact of the matter is that Roberts's appointments to the FISA court are not reviewable. Congress could make them reviewable, but until and unless it does so, they are not reviewable. That Congress could make them reviewable in the future does not make them reviewable in the present and more than the fact that Congress could make something legal in the future makes it legal in the present. It takes an extraordinary level of obtuseness not to grasp this elementary linguistic point.

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

#72

Post by larrys »

pvnick wrote: post #22
tptacek wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

>The majority of US citizens are more concerned about {the Soviets,Terrorism} than they are about NSA "accidentally" reading their emails. As somebody that's been on the ground passing out fliers for my town's restore the 4th rally that I helped organize yesterday, I've seen this apathy manifest itself not only in terms of disinterest, but also in outright anger that I would be so reckless and dangerous as to try and…

"It seems that if an issue does not directly affect the lives of the masses negatively"

While that certainly could be the case, I think you are ignoring the fact that there are many citizens who perhaps have been around long than you have that have decided that it really isn't a problem from their perspective and that it's a necessary evil. Things can't be perfect. And that they have given it some thought and are willing to put a certain amount of trust in the system to produce the right outcome.

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

#73

Post by rayiner »

wavefunction wrote: post #36
smsm42 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> He can and does appoint judges from his own party and ideology As opposed to the president who never appoints Supreme Court judges from his own party and ideology, right? And unlike FISA judges, those judges have vast powers. If you're worried about politics in court, you're very late to the game - SC judges were appointed politically for a long time. >>> So, he has been given a lot of power. Yes, Supreme Court C…

The President merely nominates, it's Congress that appoints via confirmation.

The President appoints, Congress merely confirms or vetos the confirmation.

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

#74

Post by rhizome »

tptacek wrote: post #66
lisper wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Congress cannot make murder legal. I chose a bad example because murder is generally illegal under state law, not federal law (though there are exceptions). But there are things that are illegal under federal law that Congress has the power to change. Those things are in fact illegal (now) notwithstanding that Congress could change the law and make them legal. Likewise, Robert's appointments are not reviewable (now…

It has nothing to do with state versus federal and everything to do with the core issue here. Congress can't make murder legal because to do so would be unconstitutional.

Congress can and has made murder legal: people executed under the death penalty have "Homicide" listed on their death certificate as the cause of death.

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

#75

Post by pvnick »

larrys wrote: post #72
pvnick wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The majority of US citizens are more concerned about {the Soviets,Terrorism} than they are about NSA "accidentally" reading their emails. As somebody that's been on the ground passing out fliers for my town's restore the 4th rally that I helped organize yesterday, I've seen this apathy manifest itself not only in terms of disinterest, but also in outright anger that I would be so reckless and dangerous as to try and…

"It seems that if an issue does not directly affect the lives of the masses negatively" While that certainly could be the case, I think you are ignoring the fact that there are many citizens who perhaps have been around long than you have that have decided that it really isn't a problem from their perspective and that it's a necessary evil. Things can't be perfect. And that they have given it some thought and are wil…

Yeah if that's the case then they should really just find a different country to live in that doesn't explicitly provide constitutional protection against this kind of stuff instead of supporting the illegal violation of ours. Too many people have died for these protections to let fear-based mindsets water down those accomplishments. I'm not even joking. If you aren't brave enough to live in a free society then you are free to leave and live in any number of nanny states.

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

#76

Post by crusso »

tptacek wrote: post #68
crusso wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or an asteroid could hit the earth, destroying all of us, including Robers' Constitutional powers. If your argument is that Klein is wrong because the very rules of the game could be changed by congress, then we have to consider the likelihood of such an event, probably based upon history. Has Congress intervened since the court was set up? Are they likely to? Could we just agree within the current rules of the game…

I don't understand this comment. Congress set up the FISC to begin with, the last time signals intelligence was a national issue. What prevents it from revisiting that now? No, we cannot agree that Klein is correct. The gist of what he's saying is as wrong as the lede of his article.

What prevents it from revisiting that now?

1. They have a great deal of trouble doing anything right now. This will blow over before that changes. 2. This is pretty much a solved problem as far as they're concerned. Congress tends to tack "solutions" on top of "solutions". They rarely refactor.

gist of what he's saying is as wrong

Unless Congress changes things, what he said is exactly correct. Within that context, he's right. Maybe you're arguing that he has the wrong context, but I'd argue that we should probably assume that congress isn't going to change those particular rules of the game at this point.

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

#77

Post by zhemao »

tptacek wrote: post #54
coldtea wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but why argue for the beef of the matter, when you can argue about metaphors and rhetorical misuses?

Because the subtext of the article is that Roberts himself is an intractable obstacle to reforming FISC, when in fact all the responsibility for doing so is properly on Congress, at whose pleasure Roberts serves in his capacity as FISC judge appointer. The article is inadvertently letting Congress off the hook.

What part of the article suggests that Roberts is an obstacle to reform? The article only states that in its current formulation, FISC does not have a lot of accountability because the judges are all chosen by Roberts with no input from any other part of government.

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

#78

Post by tptacek »

pvnick wrote: post #75
larrys wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It seems that if an issue does not directly affect the lives of the masses negatively" While that certainly could be the case, I think you are ignoring the fact that there are many citizens who perhaps have been around long than you have that have decided that it really isn't a problem from their perspective and that it's a necessary evil. Things can't be perfect. And that they have given it some thought and are wil…

Yeah if that's the case then they should really just find a different country to live in that doesn't explicitly provide constitutional protection against this kind of stuff instead of supporting the illegal violation of ours. Too many people have died for these protections to let fear-based mindsets water down those accomplishments. I'm not even joking. If you aren't brave enough to live in a free society then you a…

First, when you have to structure an argument around "they should just find a different country to live in", you know you're in the weeds.

Second, when you're talking about the majority of Americans finding a new country to live in, you're not just in the weeds, but also howling at the moon from them.

Third, it is fallacious to presume that people who don't have a problem with what NSA is doing now don't respect the 4th Amendment. It's right there in the text of the Constitution: searches must be reasonable. The Constitution punts on what "reasonable" means; that's why they used that word. There's no absolute for you to fall back on here.

I happen to agree with you that omnibus metadata collection is dangerous and should be further checked by the law, but I can also see both sides of the issue, and you can't, and I think you should try.

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

#79

Post by tptacek »

zhemao wrote: post #77
tptacek wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the subtext of the article is that Roberts himself is an intractable obstacle to reforming FISC, when in fact all the responsibility for doing so is properly on Congress, at whose pleasure Roberts serves in his capacity as FISC judge appointer. The article is inadvertently letting Congress off the hook.

What part of the article suggests that Roberts is an obstacle to reform? The article only states that in its current formulation, FISC does not have a lot of accountability because the judges are all chosen by Roberts with no input from any other part of government.

The only branch of government that doesn't have influence over FISC is the executive, which runs NSA.

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

#80

Post by CamperBob2 »

tptacek wrote: post #66
lisper wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Congress cannot make murder legal. I chose a bad example because murder is generally illegal under state law, not federal law (though there are exceptions). But there are things that are illegal under federal law that Congress has the power to change. Those things are in fact illegal (now) notwithstanding that Congress could change the law and make them legal. Likewise, Robert's appointments are not reviewable (now…

It has nothing to do with state versus federal and everything to do with the core issue here. Congress can't make murder legal because to do so would be unconstitutional.

Congress can't make murder legal because to do so would be unconstitutional

And conveniently enough, who gets to make that call?

How you can argue that this isn't a rigged system is, well, interesting.

Post reply on HN