Skip to comments.What about Your FISA Judges, Justice Roberts?
Posted on 11/26/2018 2:25:26 PM PST by dennisw
As long as we are on the subject of whether there is such an animal as an "Obama judge," let us consider the judges who sit on the FISA court and issue warrants allowing surveillance of American citizens who are suspected foreign agents, essentially taking the uncontested word of the government.
Their actions on behalf of one political campaign, colluding with a corrupt DOJ and FBI to target a political opponent, are not supposed to happen in a country based on the rule of law as administered by supposedly impartial judges. Empowered to safeguard our national security against foreign actors, they essentially served as an extra-constitutional arm of the Hillary Clinton campaign as it colluded with foreign actors to stage a Deep-State coup against a duly elected president, Donald J. Trump? Aiding and abetting the legacy of Barack Obama seems like something an "Obama judge" would do.
Chief Justice Roberts is the one who gets to appoint judges to the FISA court every last one of them, judges like Rudolph Contreras, who granted a previously denied Michael Flynn FISA warrant. His appointees are the ones who swallowed whole the contentions of the Obama administration using unverified material put together by a British agent and his Russian sources to aid one political party at the expense of another.
The FISA court and its star chamber judges make for a borderline example of the prophetic warning about trading a little liberty for a little security and winding up with neither. The potential abuse of FISA powers is enormous, and the damage that has been done to our republic and our politics has been staggering.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court deals with some of the most sensitive matters of national security terror threats and espionage. Its work for the most part cannot be examined by the American public, by order of the Congress and the President. It is a tribunal that is completely secret (or supposed to be), its structure largely one-sided, and its members unilaterally chosen by one person.
A rotating panel of federal judges at the FISC decides whether to grant certain types of government requests wiretapping, data analysis, and other monitoring for “foreign intelligence purposes” of suspected terrorists and spies operating in the United States.
... [T]he 11 judges are appointed exclusively by the Chief Justice of the United States, without any supplemental confirmation from the other two branches of government. John Roberts has named every member of the current court, as a well as a separate three-judge panel to hear appeals of FISC orders, known as the Court of Review.
Can a Chief Justice be impeached?
just an idle question.
Of course. The House of Representatives can do it with a majority, as I recall.
It takes two thirds of the Senate to convict.
A problem I always had was how Roberts filled the position left open by Rehnquist and immediately became chief justice over others with a lot more experience and seniority.
An then stepped right in to the role of interpreting law and fictionalizing the Obama tax argument.
Yes. Supreme Court Justices are not appointed for “life”, they are appointed for their “period of good behavior”. Violating the Constitution constitutes “bad behavior” as far as I’m concerned. Perhaps Congress, the people with the ability to impeach them does not see it the same way.
For instance, Congress has used the Courts and Exectutive agencies to delegate their authority in order to avoid unpleasant votes. They like it that way, the swamp way.
Well worth the ten minutes.
You think the CJ would get a letter if I sent him one?
(probably another idle question)
Paid and bought
So a Judge just said OK to spy on a retired US Military Lt. General as a foreign intelligence agent? Okey Dokey, boy have I got a bridge to sell him.......
28 years of bushes, clintons and o'muslims...A reign of treason & terror that no country would survive.
“Any justice can be impeached, but it’s highly improbably since there are liberal judges and conservative judges who protect each other to guarantee the survival of their game.”
And just HOW do any other judges from ANY COURT have ANY JURISDICTION when it comes to impeachment of one of their number? There is this little thingy about separation of powers in The Constitution that rears its ugly head and says that judges can’t protect each other from the oversight of the Congress. In point of fact, with the exception of the SCOTUS, The Congress could abolish every f*cking court in the country! And maybe it would be a good idea, and then we could start of with a completely new slate of judges who would be Constitutionalists.
MISS YOU YET?
It would be an exciting, interesting, and highly successful political gamble.
Do judges go through background investigations? Because my understand of why they are done is to weed out those who may be subject to blackmail.
It is easy to see that any such action is 99.99% impossible. Thus proving Robert's statement about the political persuasion of judges to be 100% false.
I had no idea Roberts was wholly responsible.
He should resign for being both felony stupid and felony biased.
b t t t
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.