The Door To The FISA Court Doesn't Even Have A Sign On It • Hacker News Board

Re: The Door To The FISA Court Doesn't Even Have A Sign On It

#11

Post by 3825 » Wed, Jul 31, 2013, 8:00 PM UTC

stonemetal wrote: post #10

speeder wrote: post #4

Kinda off-topic: Why cameras are banned on courtrooms? I remember the last US trial news all of them had sketches like this instead of photos and videos... EDIT about the argument below about google: I always search Google first, but I found lots of random answers, and I don't have enough domain knowledge to know what one (or ones) are correct or resemble how things really are, asking here usually spark people to pos…

The standard reason given is privacy for the victim and jury, less jury poisoning if there needs to be a retrial, people can be a little more or at ease, etc. It definitely depends on the court, OJ's trial was on TV.

I cannot imagine FISA Courts having victims or jury. I thought it was all decided by the judges. Is it not so?

Re: The Door To The FISA Court Doesn't Even Have A Sign On It

#12

Post by vehementi » Wed, Jul 31, 2013, 8:06 PM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #7

jemka wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://bit.ly/14DVOEC EDIT: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Why+cameras+are+banned+on+courtrooms%3F...

A "let me Google that for you" response is rude, and using a link shortener to hide a URL is poor form. For the curious it goes to http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Why+cameras+are+banned+on+courtrooms%3F...

Rude... what's the word for asking basic easily googlable questions? Is it annoying? Is it spammy? Is it presumptuous (that we should spend our time answering googlable questions)?

Re: The Door To The FISA Court Doesn't Even Have A Sign On It

#13

Post by jasonkolb » Wed, Jul 31, 2013, 8:11 PM UTC

When I was doing real estate investing I ran into a kangaroo "court" that the local corrupt city set up to handle property code violations. They would have a cop set up at the front and an appointed "judge" (they had some other name for him to not offend the law too mightily) who wore robes and asked everyone to stand up and sit down. The person in the robes would arbitrarily make up fines for the offenses according to their whims and moods. I know because there was a $4500 "judgement" on one of the houses I bought for having a driveway that needed to be repaired.

Anyway, it turns out that this "court" is a complete fabrication that the city put up as a way to put up the appearance of being fair. But cities are corporations, they aren't allowed to establish courts like this, and it was a complete sham. That's why you have to have a real judge hear traffic cases.

This is a sham traffic court too. This is not part of the judicial branch of government any more than the "property code violations court" presided over by a clown in black robes. There's a reason we have a separation of powers. A paid employee wielding a rubber stamp is not justice.

Re: The Door To The FISA Court Doesn't Even Have A Sign On It

#14

Post by sp332 » Wed, Jul 31, 2013, 8:12 PM UTC

vehementi wrote: post #12

sp332 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A "let me Google that for you" response is rude, and using a link shortener to hide a URL is poor form. For the curious it goes to http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Why+cameras+are+banned+on+courtrooms%3F...

Rude... what's the word for asking basic easily googlable questions? Is it annoying? Is it spammy? Is it presumptuous (that we should spend our time answering googlable questions)?

If you don't want to answer it, don't answer it. Leave it to motivated people.

The question wasn't just a request for raw data. It was also an expression of frustration and an invitation to debate.

Re: The Door To The FISA Court Doesn't Even Have A Sign On It

#15

Post by jemka » Wed, Jul 31, 2013, 8:15 PM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #14

vehementi wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rude... what's the word for asking basic easily googlable questions? Is it annoying? Is it spammy? Is it presumptuous (that we should spend our time answering googlable questions)?

If you don't want to answer it, don't answer it. Leave it to motivated people. The question wasn't just a request for raw data. It was also an expression of frustration and an invitation to debate.

OP asked "why". OP didn't ask, "Here are the facts I've researched and understand, do you agree/disagree?"

The former is lazy and relatively useless, the latter is an opportunity for enticing discussion.

Re: The Door To The FISA Court Doesn't Even Have A Sign On It

#16

Post by sp332 » Wed, Jul 31, 2013, 8:23 PM UTC

jemka wrote: post #15

sp332 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't want to answer it, don't answer it. Leave it to motivated people. The question wasn't just a request for raw data. It was also an expression of frustration and an invitation to debate.

OP asked "why". OP didn't ask, "Here are the facts I've researched and understand, do you agree/disagree?" The former is lazy and relatively useless, the latter is an opportunity for enticing discussion.

Let's say it was useless. Responding with a content-free and condescending comment did nothing to further the conversation. You're using more space on the page to say nothing and dragging down the tone of the conversation.

Re: The Door To The FISA Court Doesn't Even Have A Sign On It

#17

Post by jwoah12 » Wed, Jul 31, 2013, 8:24 PM UTC

jasonkolb wrote: post #13

When I was doing real estate investing I ran into a kangaroo "court" that the local corrupt city set up to handle property code violations. They would have a cop set up at the front and an appointed "judge" (they had some other name for him to not offend the law too mightily) who wore robes and asked everyone to stand up and sit down. The person in the robes would arbitrarily make up fines for the offenses according…

I agree with your sentiment, but the Constitution gives congress the power to establish inferior courts.

Re: The Door To The FISA Court Doesn't Even Have A Sign On It

#18

Post by lifeformed » Wed, Jul 31, 2013, 8:29 PM UTC

vehementi wrote: post #12

sp332 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A "let me Google that for you" response is rude, and using a link shortener to hide a URL is poor form. For the curious it goes to http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Why+cameras+are+banned+on+courtrooms%3F...

Rude... what's the word for asking basic easily googlable questions? Is it annoying? Is it spammy? Is it presumptuous (that we should spend our time answering googlable questions)?

I thought that question would provoke some good discussion.

Re: The Door To The FISA Court Doesn't Even Have A Sign On It

#19

Post by jasonkolb » Wed, Jul 31, 2013, 8:33 PM UTC

jwoah12 wrote: post #17

jasonkolb wrote: post #13

When I was doing real estate investing I ran into a kangaroo "court" that the local corrupt city set up to handle property code violations. They would have a cop set up at the front and an appointed "judge" (they had some other name for him to not offend the law too mightily) who wore robes and asked everyone to stand up and sit down. The person in the robes would arbitrarily make up fines for the offenses according…

I agree with your sentiment, but the Constitution gives congress the power to establish inferior courts.

Thanks... I actually hadn't thought about that aspect of it (that real estate court was still not established by Congress ;)

I've been reading up on that a bit since your comment, it's a pretty interesting topic because it touches on one branch's ability to influence another. It's a little troubling that a supreme court justice (Roberts, in this case) has the ability to fill this oversight court with whoever he wants. It seems that needs to be fixed.

Re: The Door To The FISA Court Doesn't Even Have A Sign On It

#20

Post by jemka » Wed, Jul 31, 2013, 8:33 PM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #16

jemka wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP asked "why". OP didn't ask, "Here are the facts I've researched and understand, do you agree/disagree?" The former is lazy and relatively useless, the latter is an opportunity for enticing discussion.

Let's say it was useless. Responding with a content-free and condescending comment did nothing to further the conversation. You're using more space on the page to say nothing and dragging down the tone of the conversation.

It provides OP, and others, with information as to why it was useless to help prevent future useless comments, improving the overall comment quality of Hacker News. Albeit, my method was crass.