Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

Igel

(37,535 posts)

23. Because Congress isn't the Judiciary.

Reply to BornLooser (Reply #9)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 07:53 PM

Jul 2013

Three co-equal branches, remember?

The President doesn't have oversight of Congress, neither does the Judiciary. Congress doesn't have oversight over the President, nor over the Judiciary. Etc. Checks and balances, but no oversight.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

27 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

US must fix secret Fisa courts, says top judge who granted surveillance orders [View all] kpete Jul 2013 OP

This is the fundamental problem, the process is NOT adversarial. nt bemildred Jul 2013 #1

The problem isn't that it's not adversarial... RiverNoord Jul 2013 #2

No, the problem isnt the secrecy either but rather with the lack of oversight. cstanleytech Jul 2013 #3

Agreed. n/t 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2013 #10

OK... you're not describing real oversight RiverNoord Jul 2013 #19

The Chief Justice of the SCOTUS is a special position. Igel Jul 2013 #21

I think dividing up the appointment of the FISA judges would be a good idea davidpdx Jul 2013 #26

It does not seem to me that we disagree. bemildred Jul 2013 #5

If the government or a private non-profit appoints someone to represent the adversaries JDPriestly Jul 2013 #7

Serious Question ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2013 #13

Right - I mean, you couldn't put the party RiverNoord Jul 2013 #14

The EFF or ACLU RiverNoord Jul 2013 #17

"What Fisa does is not adjudication, but approval." Fantastic Anarchist Jul 2013 #4

Again, thanks Ed Snowden for leaking, thereby opening the door for legal challenges and criticism.nt limpyhobbler Jul 2013 #6

This was open knowledge before Snowden dished out the goods RiverNoord Jul 2013 #16

I didn't think so. The NSA publicly denied the existence of mass surveillance until Snowden. limpyhobbler Jul 2013 #18

Of course the NSA publicly denied RiverNoord Jul 2013 #20

"Court"? ForgoTheConsequence Jul 2013 #8

Again, there never are adversarial hearings RiverNoord Jul 2013 #15

There is never anyone there "to argue the other side" over the issuance of a warrant . . . markpkessinger Jul 2013 #22

Congress has no oversight why? BornLooser Jul 2013 #9

Because Congress isn't the Judiciary. Igel Jul 2013 #23

Rememb..YGBFKM! In the Berman the Boomer voice: "C'mon, Man!" BornLooser Jul 2013 #24

Isn't that ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2013 #11

Any objections? randome Jul 2013 #12

He's embarrassed, an outsider, and doesn't agree. Igel Jul 2013 #25

Yeah, why don't they fix this while they're at it..... DeSwiss Jul 2013 #27