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

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

#81

Post by btilly » Fri, Jul 05, 2013, 9:50 PM UTC

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…

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 Congress and to issue injunctions against presidential administrations.

Not so.

Not exclusive because 8 other justices have equivalent authority on that ground.

Not unaccountable because he cannot exercise it without convincing 4 other justices to go along with him, through reasoning that is published for the world to see and analyze. (Which many do. In great detail.)

By contrast the appointment authority is a lifetime, exclusive power that he does not have to justify to anybody. No matter the legal underpinnings, there is no question that decisions made by his appointees shape the actual surveillance that takes place. The ability to reappoint every 7 years gives him real ability to, if he chooses, order judges to decide a particular way on threat of needing a new career. (It is doubtful that he operates in this way, but he can.)

There are limits on this power. It is granted by Congress. And so on. But it is the only power that he, by himself, can exercise with no oversight from anyone else.

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

#82

Post by Apocryphon » Fri, Jul 05, 2013, 9:50 PM UTC

Zelphyr wrote: post #16

Am I the only one who thinks he reduced the efficacy of his argument significantly by quoting Kanye West?

Ezra Klein is a columnist for The Atlantic. They're all about mixing progressive intelligentsia commentary with sly pop culture hipster references.

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

#83

Post by CamperBob2 » Fri, Jul 05, 2013, 9:52 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #67

apalmer wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your point is completely valid on a technicality level. On a pragmatic level however: Congress has already signed off or rather abdicated responsibility (I think for purposes of plausible deniability) of the FISA courts to Justice Roberts. Meanwhile as he is in a nutshell controlling the appointees and as such general direction of the program, while at the same time leading the majority of the one court that technica…

Is the problem that John Roberts controls appointees? Or is the problem that the only check on NSA's surveillance is a glorified review board, instead of comprehensive system of laws? How much safer would you feel if the Chief Justice was a Democratic appointee, and selected only Democratic appointees to the FISC?

Hint: I would feel "safer" if former Stasi officials weren't looking at what we're doing and nodding approvingly, like a master who smiles as he raises a favored apprentice to the status of journeyman.

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

#84

Post by pvnick » Fri, Jul 05, 2013, 10:06 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #78

pvnick wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Like you, I'd like to consider myself decently well-versed on the issues and able to sympathize with both sides. However, I'm also coming from the position of hearing Greenwald describe an imminent set of leaks that describe the wholesale collection of phone conversation contents [1] (not just metadata) which IMO changes things drastically. You have to be reading from a dictionary of antonyms to find that under the definition of reasonable.

I would personally be fine with just having more transparency and using warrants issued by real (not secret) courts, even if we keep some of the technologies themselves, since I'm sure they are powerful tools to protect against the real threat of terrorism. But yes, when I consider the millions of lives that have been given to accomplish and defend the set of protections we have as Americans, I do mean it when I say that those who prefer security to freedom should consider finding a different country in which to live, even if it's not logistically feasible to do so. That's just because I'm personally an idealistic, rather than pragmatic, person.

I also apologize for getting overly political in this thread. I'm just coming off the tails of the rally yesterday.

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/29/glenn-greenwald-nsa... - Read: "they're storing every call and have the capability to listen to them at any time"

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

#85

Post by baddox » Fri, Jul 05, 2013, 10:09 PM UTC

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…

> Congress could probably ban all foreign surveillance (that might create a Constitutional crisis, since foreign spying is a war power allocated to the Executive).

That would be an ironic constitutional crisis, since the Constitution makes it clear that the decision to exercise war powers is allocated to the Legislative.

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

#86

Post by baddox » Fri, Jul 05, 2013, 10:10 PM UTC

btilly wrote: post #81

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…

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 Congress and to issue injunctions against presidential administrations. Not so. Not exclusive because 8 other justices have equivalent authority on that ground. Not unaccountab…

> through reasoning that is published for the world to see and analyze. (Which many do. In great detail.)

And why is that relevant or useful in any way, since "the world" has no legal authority to influence the justices in any way (except for Congress passing new legislation after the fact)?

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

#87

Post by Jach » Fri, Jul 05, 2013, 10:13 PM UTC

btilly wrote: post #81

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…

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 Congress and to issue injunctions against presidential administrations. Not so. Not exclusive because 8 other justices have equivalent authority on that ground. Not unaccountab…

I'd also say his supreme court position is not necessarily lifetime. A supreme court judge could conceivably be impeached and removed by Congress, with the executive branch providing the muscle to hall them out of their chairs.

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

#88

Post by jivatmanx » Fri, Jul 05, 2013, 10:24 PM UTC

crusso wrote: post #76

tptacek wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, h…

>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.

Lack of simplicity in law is a serious problem, but not the main one, at least in this case. The problem is that laws increase the arbitrary powers of government, and rarely if every restrict them.

In most cases, such as the patriot act, they will simply find that vaguest provision and interpret it in the broadest way possible, And, in this case, that interpretation is also secret. The rest of the text is basically filler.

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

#89

Post by apalmer » Fri, Jul 05, 2013, 10:33 PM UTC

lisper wrote: post #71

tptacek wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 virtu…

Pretty much ^^^

I think this is an interesting but (apparently) subtle argument, so lets take it a step further for illustration purposes.

The US could repeal the first amendment, and explicitly make being a buddhist illegal, if enough congressmen got on board. There is a clear well known process for this, and in fact even precedent as previous amendments have been repealed. This does not make it incorrect to say 'freedom of religion is a inalienable right in the USA', because it is such today, as the law stands, the fact that congress has the power to change this doesn't make it a false statement...

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

#90

Post by apalmer » Fri, Jul 05, 2013, 10:41 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #67

apalmer wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your point is completely valid on a technicality level. On a pragmatic level however: Congress has already signed off or rather abdicated responsibility (I think for purposes of plausible deniability) of the FISA courts to Justice Roberts. Meanwhile as he is in a nutshell controlling the appointees and as such general direction of the program, while at the same time leading the majority of the one court that technica…

Is the problem that John Roberts controls appointees? Or is the problem that the only check on NSA's surveillance is a glorified review board, instead of comprehensive system of laws? How much safer would you feel if the Chief Justice was a Democratic appointee, and selected only Democratic appointees to the FISC?

The problem is the executive branch has already under both parties have already signed off on this...

The legislative branch have chosen to willfully turn their eyes away on this...

The judicial branch has already provided tacit approval since the chief justice of the supreme court is to a large degree cosigning the constitutionality of this...

The people have decided that this is acceptable...

so its not really an 'issue', for me its like GWB, I didnt like him as a president but I had to aknowledge he was legitimately the president by the mandate of the people and in line with all required bureaucratic processes... similarly to how some feel about Obama...

and no its not that he is republican or not, i mean i think its become clear Obama has embraced these kind of grey area morally questionable but politically palatable solutions to a greater extent than GWB did. Its not political with me, its just from my perspective clear that sooner or later it will be abused, and it is such a potential seachange i doubt we will ever roll it back.