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

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

konklone.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 59 posts

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

#21

Post by greenyoda »

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.

But still, state and local governments are bound by the 14th Amendment's "equal protection" clause[1], so if a city court makes arbitrary and whimsical decisions they can probably be sued for civil rights violations.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

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

#22

Post by maxerickson »

jasonkolb wrote: post #19
jwoah12 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

He has to fill the court with federal judges that have been appointed by a President and approved by the Senate. That's a somewhat higher standard than whoever.

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

#23

Post by mindrag »

3825 wrote: post #11
stonemetal wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That's true, but all FISA proceedings are classified, so there's no way they would allow cameras.

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

#24

Post by dlinder »

Is anyone collecting a list of the surreal, absurd, or kafkaesque events surrounding post-9/11 national security?

This episode reminds me of the red warning light from ksm's gitmo trial that would sometimes light up and cut the gallery feeds on its own: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/01/secrec...

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

#25

Post by tbrownaw »

The lack of a sign is not the problem. Given that hand scanner by the door, having a sign would be a bit silly -- anyone who would actually need the sign can't get in regardless. Given that (almost?) everything they do apparently involves classified information, the hand scanner makes sense.

What is a problem, is not having anyone to answer the phones and not having the building receptionist know what to tell people.

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

#26

Post by Zikes »

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…

I would have loved to have a device to record the pre-trial banter in a state court prior to a recent case involving a family member. The prosecutor was going on at length about a recent event where they had driven to Florida for a vacation and got pulled over for speeding, but was soon let go after they told them who they were and who they worked for.

I wanted very much to stand and ask what other laws did not apply to them, if they were free to ignore those pertaining to automobiles, or even if they felt they should be held responsible if they were to break the same law they were charging my family member for.

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

#27

Post by semiprivate »

tbrownaw wrote: post #25

The lack of a sign is not the problem. Given that hand scanner by the door, having a sign would be a bit silly -- anyone who would actually need the sign can't get in regardless. Given that (almost?) everything they do apparently involves classified information, the hand scanner makes sense. What is a problem, is not having anyone to answer the phones and not having the building receptionist know what to tell people.

And if they put a hand scanner on 1 other door then what? Having a sign that indicates where a court is, is not silly.

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

#28

Post by philwelch »

ferdo wrote: post #5

No sign on the door indicates that they know they should be ashamed even though shame doesn't appear to be one of their guiding lights. edit: great little piece, btw. I'll pass it around.

By law it's a secret court to begin with. Whether or not there's a sign on the door, it's still a secret court. Would a secret court that advertised its location be more palatable to you somehow? Because a sign on the door adds zero significance to the substance of the FISA court's existence or powers.

And, given that it is a secret court, well it wouldn't be very secret if everyone knew where the courtroom was, would it?

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

#29

Post by 3825 »

greenyoda wrote: post #21
jwoah12 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

But still, state and local governments are bound by the 14th Amendment's "equal protection" clause[1], so if a city court makes arbitrary and whimsical decisions they can probably be sued for civil rights violations. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

I must be reading this incorrectly because if this is what I think this is then states and local governments cannot discriminate based on citizenship. Please correct me (and sorry for going off a tangent) but doesn't this make what they're doing in Arizona unconstitutional?

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

#30

Post by rohansingh »

3825 wrote: post #29
greenyoda wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But still, state and local governments are bound by the 14th Amendment's "equal protection" clause[1], so if a city court makes arbitrary and whimsical decisions they can probably be sued for civil rights violations. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

I must be reading this incorrectly because if this is what I think this is then states and local governments cannot discriminate based on citizenship. Please correct me (and sorry for going off a tangent) but doesn't this make what they're doing in Arizona unconstitutional?

Yes, that was part of the basis of the DoJ's case there. The Fourteenth Amendment extends protection to all persons, not just citizens.
Post reply on HN