EternalFantasies
EqualOportunity"Offender"
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2017
- Posts
- 4,663
nvm plz delete
Plz Delete.
Plz Delete.
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And can we wash away those WA & HI judges along with them?
Its becoming snowflake paradise; which essentially is the opposite.
So much for the moot court competition. Damn.Plz Delete.
So much for the moot court competition. Damn.![]()
I believe that a secret court like the FISA court is blatantly unconstitutional. What's worse, it's essentially a rubber stamp for the government. I believe they favor the Federal government 98% of the time. And the idea that this called a court is a joke. There are three judges, a "prosecutor" that's trying to get a warrant or whatever, but there's no defender to fight against what the prosecutor wants.
I believe that a secret court like the FISA court is blatantly unconstitutional. What's worse, it's essentially a rubber stamp for the government. I believe they favor the Federal government 98% of the time. And the idea that this called a court is a joke. There are three judges, a "prosecutor" that's trying to get a warrant or whatever, but there's no defender to fight against what the prosecutor wants.
I believe that a secret court like the FISA court is blatantly unconstitutional.
I believe that a secret court like the FISA court is blatantly unconstitutional. What's worse, it's essentially a rubber stamp for the government. I believe they favor the Federal government 98% of the time. And the idea that this called a court is a joke. There are three judges, a "prosecutor" that's trying to get a warrant or whatever, but there's no defender to fight against what the prosecutor wants.
In support, OLC pointed out that in normal criminal cases, the government is permitted to persuade a court of the need for a warrant without the target being present.
A similar reasoning underpinned later court decisions upholding FISA against Article III challenges. As explained by the District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the “case or controversy” standard was met because surveillance applications under the statute “involve concrete questions respecting the application of the Act and are in a form such that a judge is capable of acting on them, much as he might otherwise act on an ex parte application for a warrant.”
Courts also relied on the similarity to regular warrants in rejecting the argument that FISA Court proceedings violate Article III because the court hears applications solely on an ex parte basis (i.e., with only one party appearing before it) and never conducts adversarial proceedings (i.e., with the opposing parties present).
Those opposed to the legislation during its consideration, however, emphasized that FISA Court orders were not like regular warrants because their validity could not be attacked in later proceedings. As then-Professor Laurence Silberman argued: “Although it is true that judges have traditionally issued search warrants ex parte, they have done so as part of a criminal investigative process which … for the most part, leads to a trial, a traditional adversary proceeding.”
In a criminal trial, the defendant has the opportunity to challenge the means by which the government obtained its evidence, thus subjecting the search to adversarial testing. These concerns prompted an important amendment to the legislation, intended to facilitate “collateral attacks” — challenges that take place in subsequent or parallel legal proceedings — in at least some cases. The government was required to notify the defendant when “any information obtained or derived from an electronic surveillance” of that individual was to be used in criminal prosecutions or other legal proceedings.
These notice provisions allowed the initial spate of challenges to warrants issued under the 1978 version of FISA. As the above discussion makes clear, in designing the FISA Court, Congress took account of the strictures of Article III; and both Congress and the courts drew comfort from the similarities between the procedures used by the special court and those used for regular warrants.
https://www.scribd.com/document/259083922/What-Went-Wrong-With-the-FISA-Court (page 14)
It's one more legacy of our national overreaction to 9/11, which, amazingly, we don't seem to be finished with yet.