No it doesn’t. Some leg work requires warrants, not necessarily spying.
If they need a warrant, they can follow the normal process. There’s nothing special about those judges.
1 Like
What does the “F” in FISA stand for?
They should require that the target have an “Ad Litem” assigned and paid for by the department that wants the warrant.
If a military member is evicted for non rental payment, and doesnt appear in court, the landlord has to pay the court to hire an Ad Litem attorney to represent the interests of the absent service member. This always results in at least a 90 day continuance. The Ad Litem appears before the court and tells the judge if he is deployed and what his status is. These fees are paid by the land lord, but the ad litem represents the SM and not the landlord.
Perhaps an Ad Litem would work, but knowing the govt, they would require special rules for these particular Ad Litems and they would probably be bought off just like the judges. In other words, if the Ad Litem has a good track record of squelching the warrant, then the department would hire a different Ad Litem who has a poorer track record.
I’m sorry but this isn’t enough IMO, the fact that FISA court even consider David Kris justifies the disbanding of the courts entirely.
1 Like
The problem is that politically it is a non starter with either party.
A solution that would have a chance of being adopted would be to distribute the appointment authority.
The problem is that the members of the court are appointed solely by the Chief Justice. Chief Justice’s Burger, Rehnquist and Roberts have all been historically sympathetic to the FBI and their surveillance requests and have consequently cherry picked Judges that share that sympathy. In the broader Article III Judiciary, there are many Judges that are far less sympathetic and would hold the FBI to a higher standard and would likely block many surveillance requests.
To get a mix of those Judges on the Surveillance Court requires a broader appointing authority.
I would increase the court from 11 to 13 Judges, 1 appointed by the Chief Justice and 1 each appointed by the Chief Judges of the 11 numbered circuits and 1 by the Chief Judge of the DC Circuit. I would also shorten the term on the court from 7 to 3 years.
For the FISA Court of Review I would retain 3 Judges. 1 appointed by the Chief Justice. 1 appointed by the Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit. 1 appointed on a rotating basis by the Chief Judge of the other numbered circuits and the DC Circuit. I would also reduce their terms from 7 to 3 years.
That would solve the biggest problem with FISA, the cherry picking of Judges that are sympathetic to the government.
For me I just can’t argue for secret courts under any circumstances. The dangers for abuse is to great.
Why the 9th Circuit?
The 9th Circuit is chosen because of its tremendous size and because it is the one circuit that generally will yield up Judges less inclined to be sympathetic to the United States Government, thus offsetting the Chief Justice’s pick that is more likely to be sympathetic.
Understood, but no. That would be favoring one circuit over the others.
How about involving the ACLU?
