Thanks! Consider this: Congress could next week pass a law requiring Roberts to appoint an equal number of judges appointed by Democratic administrations as by Republican administrations. Roberts could do nothing to stop them.
Sure. But I'm pretty sure Ezra Klein means "under current law"; of course the law could change such that this is not the case any more.
I think you're reading a stronger argument into the original article than is present. He's not arguing that Roberts is constitutionally guaranteed this power, or anything of the sort. Just that under current law, he has this power, and under current law, it's a lifetime appointment since the position that grants such power, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, is also a lifetime appointment.
Maybe he does, but since Congress can't restrain the Supreme Court in other ways (eg by taking away the power of judicial review), omitting the caveat in this case is a serious oversight that is going to result in many, if not most, readers getting entirely the wrong impression.
Journalists who write on legal topics have an ethical obligation to provide proper context to their readers, few of whom have any legal training. Frankly, I think that journalists ought to have a JD themselves before covering these topics, in much the same way tht science journalists ought to have a BS.
Or an asteroid could hit the earth, destroying all of us, including Robers' Constitutional powers.
If your argument is that Klein is wrong because the very rules of the game could be changed by congress, then we have to consider the likelihood of such an event, probably based upon history.
Has Congress intervened since the court was set up? Are they likely to?
Could we just agree within the current rules of the game specified by Congress, Klein is correct?
I don't understand this comment. Congress set up the FISC to begin with, the last time signals intelligence was a national issue. What prevents it from revisiting that now?
No, we cannot agree that Klein is correct. The gist of what he's saying is as wrong as the lede of his article.
1. They have a great deal of trouble doing anything right now. This will blow over before that changes.
2. This is pretty much a solved problem as far as they're concerned. Congress tends to tack "solutions" on top of "solutions". They rarely refactor.
gist of what he's saying is as wrong
Unless Congress changes things, what he said is exactly correct. Within that context, he's right. Maybe you're arguing that he has the wrong context, but I'd argue that we should probably assume that congress isn't going to change those particular rules of the game at this point.
>2. This is pretty much a solved problem as far as they're concerned. Congress tends to tack "solutions" on top of "solutions". They rarely refactor.
Lack of simplicity in law is a serious problem, but not the main one, at least in this case. The problem is that laws increase the arbitrary powers of government, and rarely if every restrict them.
In most cases, such as the patriot act, they will simply find that vaguest provision and interpret it in the broadest way possible, And, in this case, that interpretation is also secret. The rest of the text is basically filler.
Except if the work he does benefits both Democratic and Republicans (whose interests at the top level coincide, anyway -- the same way wealthy private interests fund both parties campaigns, hedge their bets, so to speak).
In which case Congress would not pass anything he wouldn't really like (except at the level of personal politics).
