@speechboy71 No. All we know is they said the surveillance violated 4th Amendment grounds on 1 occasion. They reject nearly no surv requests
@speechboy71 But they are also, BY STATUTE, designed to be almost powerless. @attackerman
-
-
@emptywheel@attackerman Well apparently not! -
@speechboy71 A good point I heard today: Judges who judge secretly don't get subject to embarrassment/criticism by peers.@emptywheel -
@speechboy71@emptywheel which is a potent if less-stated part of legal system. Dumb opinions impact career prospect. Not an issue w FISC -
@attackerman@emptywheel Which means they are more likely to issue decisions that favor the gov't? -
@speechboy71 there is an issue of capture for secret courts that is underexplored. Same for secret congressional committees.@emptywheel -
@attackerman@emptywheel . . . take legal responsibilities seriously. -
@speechboy71 Except, again, Exigent letters proves that false.@attackerman -
@emptywheel@attackerman Can you send me a link to your argument on exigent letters? - 9 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.