So long as there's shady non-transparent courts deciding who can be monitored and why (more like "eeeh, why not!" amirite?), any changes to legislation will be pointless!
US Supreme Court declines to hear NSA mass phone-slurp case
The US Supreme Court has declined to hear a case brought against the NSA by Verizon customers over the agency's mass collection of mobile phone call data. Lawyer Larry Klayman won the first round of the case against America's top online spying agency in December, when District of Columbia Judge Richard Leon found in favor of …
-
-
Tuesday 8th April 2014 06:52 GMT Chris G
'Nuff said
From Wikipaedia: "The Court consists of a chief justice and eight associate justices who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Once appointed, justices have life tenure unless they resign, retire, take senior status, or are removed after impeachment (though none has ever been removed)"
The judges have discretionary powers that are wide ranging, not really beneficial to a 'Democracy' when the appointments are largely political.
-
Friday 11th April 2014 16:54 GMT Michael Wojcik
Re: 'Nuff said
The judges have discretionary powers that are wide ranging,
Yes, because an independent judiciary is extremely important, as anyone who pays any attention to political history knows.
not really beneficial to a 'Democracy'
Assuming "Democracy" in scare quotes means something like "republic in which a substantial portion of the government is democratically elected", which is the form of government we tolerate here in the US, then I'd like to see an actual, substantial argument on this thesis, grounded in some understanding of political science.
when the appointments are largely political.
Well, duh. How else would justices be appointed - a lottery? Several of the states have popularly-elected judges, and let me tell you, that has not proven itself to be a better system.That's why there are checks and balances - in this case, specifically the Senate's confirmation privilege, which has been exercised to reject appointees.
The history of SCOTUS shows numerous occasions where justices opined, voted, and ruled against the explicit preferences of the party and President that nominated them to the bench, starting with Marbury v. Madison in 1803.
-
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 8th April 2014 18:40 GMT Matt Bryant
Re: Not at all surprised
Sad to see your paranoia didn't let you do even the tiniest and simplest bit of research. Members of the FISC listed here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court#Membership), members of the Supreme justices listed here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court#Membership), please note there is no overlap.
You may now continue being stupid.
-
-
-
Tuesday 8th April 2014 16:35 GMT Tom 13
It would be helpful if El Reg were to accurately report the facts in this case
instead of misrepresenting the fact to fan the flames of hysteria.
Scotusblog correctly notes that Klaymen et al claimed only SCOTUS could hear the case. Given normal practice Klayman's route was always very risky. Department of Justice contended lower courts could hear the case. Setting aside my feeling about the current head of that department, so long as a lower court can hear the case, SCOTUS prefers to go that route since it gives more latitude for the complete airing of conflicting theories. There is nothing unusual or conspiratorial in that.
So now the case should go before a lower court. If the lower court rules it does not have the authority to hear the case, Klayman et al. can appeal that decision to SCOTUS. At which point SCOTUS can either take the case or rule from the bench that the lower court does have authority and should proceed to hear the case.
Frankly I think we're better off with SCOTUS ruling that while Congress can setup specialized courts for narrow and specialized areas, that when it comes to fundamental rights that have been specifically enumerated for protection in the Constitution any court in the US has the authority to hear the case.
-
Tuesday 8th April 2014 16:50 GMT ItsNotMe
Re: It would be helpful if El Reg were to accurately report the facts in this case
"instead of misrepresenting the fact to fan the flames of hysteria."
Aw...come on now Tom...what is wrong with a little hysteria once in a while? Isn't it that which keeps the Blog-o-sphere in business?
You sure are one party pooper.
-