Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, February 08, 2014

A Washington state-based federal appellate judge who once represented the Seattle Mariners baseball team has now joined the roster of one of the nation's most unique and secretive courts. Judge Richard C. Tallman's new appointment to the three-member Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review potentially gives him oversight of highly sensitive national security matters that may never see the light of day. Tallman's selection also comes as Congress and the White House contemplate changes in surveillance litigation, potentially putting him in the middle of an uncharted legal landscape.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

Diablo

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

Tallman's seven-year term on the little-known surveillance appeals court commenced Jan. 27, but only became public Friday. Unlike his 1999 nomination by then-President Bill Clinton to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, a position which he will still hold, Tallman did not need Senate confirmation or a White House nod for his new responsibility. Instead, he was selected by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Okay, I'll leave it to Sully, Moder8 and other attorneys to comment on the details.
But the paragraph about no senate confirmation was buried a bit at the link and frankly makes me gag.
Roberts appoints these judges and congress, let alone the president, get no balance of power? This is wrong.
Once more the most important decisions are removed from the constitutional process, it seems.

#1 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-02-08 02:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

Once more the most important decisions are removed from the constitutional process, it seems.

No, the appointment is not removed from the constitutional process. This Article III judge, and all others, was confirmed by the Senate when he was appointed. Service on FISC and FISCR is part time and for limited terms. Those judges still carry out their normal court duties. Congress wrote the legislation that permits the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to make these appointments. Congress is free to change that at any time. Nothing in the constitution requires the confirmation process for non-Article III appointments, see, e.g., magistrate and bankruptcy judges.

You may now suppress your gag reflex.

#2 | Posted by et_al at 2014-02-08 01:40 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Congress wrote the legislation that permits the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to make these appointments."

Oh, I see, Congress can circumvent the constitutional process by calling it "part time." I got it. That makes it so much better.

#3 | Posted by LEgregius at 2014-02-08 08:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

This has nothing to do with the thread topic, but check out Jersey girl Debbie Harry. Feel free to fall in love:

www.bing.com

#4 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-02-08 09:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Back on topic: Legregius put it better than I did.
Congress authorizes things only Congress is allowed to do under our Constitution.
The late Sobran put it best: The Constitution poses no threat to our current form of government.

#5 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-02-08 09:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Off topic again, but check out Debbie's look. Too much.

www.bing.com

#6 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-02-08 10:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Oh, I see, Congress can circumvent the constitutional process by calling it "part time." I got it. That makes it so much better.

I bet you're one of those "cafeteria constitutionalists," i.e. doesn't know sheet from sheenola.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2: [The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint...Judges of the Supreme Court..., and all other Officers of the United States...but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

Article III, Section 1: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Oh sheet, other than the Supreme Court, Congress can create it and determine how it works, see, e.g. US circuit courts, district courts, magistrate judges, bankruptcy judges, administrative law judges, etc.

Too bad you couldn't repress your gag reflex. Diablo is in the boat with you.

#7 | Posted by et_al at 2014-02-09 12:13 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

So Et is okay with Roberts as the sole appointer.....no other opinion than his?
Cool.....right on....I mean, who needs a process or debate?

#8 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-02-09 02:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

Work, consume, watch television and shut the #$@@ up.

Your infallible leaders anointed by god know what they are doing.

#9 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-02-09 02:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

You may now suppress your gag reflex.

#2 | Posted by et_al

It still is an end run around what is right.

#10 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-02-09 12:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

#8

You, like Congress, are free to have whatever opinion you like but to call this "unconstitutional" is stupid. Much like the idea of dragging a sitting appellate judge before a political body to be raked over about a fifteen year old majority opinion on abortion would be. Any judge with half a brain would say no to the offer.

#11 | Posted by et_al at 2014-02-09 01:22 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

You, like Congress, are free to have whatever opinion you like but to call this "unconstitutional" is stupid. Much like the idea of dragging a sitting appellate judge before a political body to be raked over about a fifteen year old majority opinion on abortion would be. Any judge with half a brain would say no to the offer.

-------

Government by the fascisti, for the fascisti.

#12 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-02-09 01:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

**** What more PROOF do you need to know that the USA is a DICTATORSHIP!!!

#13 | Posted by AntiCadillac at 2014-02-09 07:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

How does following the Constitution prove anything is a dictatorship?

Is there anything you are not afraid of?

#14 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-02-09 08:03 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

As if requiring confirmation would make any difference. FISA judges approve virtually every warrant request. Does it really make a difference what type of person holds the rubber stamp?

#15 | Posted by JOE at 2014-02-10 09:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort