The Chief Justice of the U.S.
Supreme Court unilaterally appoints the 11 judges of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court who serve seven year terms.
Utah District Court Judge Dee Benson served on the Court from April 2004
to April 2011. Critics of the
appointment procedure argue that it results in an improper concentration of
power in the Chief Justice, produces a powerful pro-government bias that
undermines the Court’s legitimacy and promotes an undesirable ideological
homogeneity among the judges. Numerous
legislative proposals to amend the selection process have been filed in
Congress.
Which method for selecting the FISC
judges should be adopted by Congress?
Option 1: Status quo.
Option 2: Judges nominated by President and confirmed
by U.S. Senate.
Option 3: The chief judge of each federal circuit
appoints one judge.
Option 4: Three judges appointed by Chief Justice and
two judges appointed by the Majority and Minority Leaders of both Houses of
Congress, thus totaling 11 judges.
Explain your answer.
I like option 3. I feel like since this option has the most contributors, the opinions and biases will be distributed evenly. I don't like one person or even a small group of people, like in option 4, having a lot of power. That makes me very uncomfortable. I also don't like the presidential nomination because even though it has to be confirmed by the senate, I feel like it would be easier to be overtaken by the president's personal opinion, as opposed to a more diversified, less biased one. I think option 3 has the potential to create a unique spectrum of judges.
ReplyDeleteOut of the four choices, I would choose option four. I have three reasons for this choice: (1) Majority and Minority Leaders are elected by those members of their party in congress, who we vote for; (2) Majority and Minority Leadership is not a lifetime position, but one that does turn over; (3) Congressmen/women are ideally more inclined to do what the public wants because of the nature of their elected status. While I understand Anne's fear that this could possibly be too much of a concentration of power, I feel satisfied that because of the variety of people choosing judges and the various interests of those who would be choosing that this would not become an issue.
ReplyDeleteOut of the four above choices I would have to agree that option four is the most desirable. Preserving the status quo is for me clearly the worst of the options, as it most concentrates power, with no checks whatsoever. As the judges serve only seven year terms I feel this is an issue that can be solved at a level below the presidency, but perhaps above the circuit courts. I am thus left with option four, which is admittedly not perfect, but it does decentralize power to an extent, and eliminates a degree of ideological homogeneity.
ReplyDeleteI also would choose option 4. I think that this would provide the general population the greatest influence over the members of the court, and by extension, their own governance. I dislike option 1, because that puts the appointment of all judges in control of a non-elected individual, which doesn't seem appropriate for such an important court. I don't like option 2, because it would allow a president to stack the court with people that only share their viewpoint (politically, on civil rights, etc.). Option 3 would actually be acceptable, but I feel like has the potential to carry too heavy of a government bias. All in all, I feel that option 4 is the best bet, because it would allow the court to contain a wide spectrum of opinions, from every part of the political spectrum, I feel like there would be a lessened danger of conformity among the members of the court.
ReplyDeleteI would not pick number one. I agree that this current system promotes undesirable ideological homogeneity. There are not enough checks and balances in play with this system.
ReplyDeleteI would pick option two. This is how the supreme court justices are picked. It includes a suitable amount of checks and balance, going through two branches of government.
I don't think three is a good idea because although it includes more people it still stays within only one branch of government.
I do also like option four. I think it would also create balance. I think it would work very well. I think the only reason I like two more is because that is how supreme court justices are picked. It's a good system that has been in play for a while and I think it has worked well.
I'm in favor of option two. Like Mary said, that system is how Supreme Court justices are chosen and they are the most respected judges that sit on the highest court in the land. It only makes sense that FISA court judges who also hold a significant amount of power should go through the same vetting process by obtaining Senate approval. However, FISA court judges only serve for a period of 7 years, so at most a particular president would only have the opportunity to nominate two judges assuming he/she serves two terms. I think this helps distribute power because different presidents have different ideologies and therefore the judges all serving at one time would not have been nominated by the same person and would distribute different ways of thinking, refuting the claim that the FISC judges are groomed to do the government's bidding. I'm okay with option 4 as well although I would like the judges to be confirmed by a legislative body rather than automatically appointed. Option three could work as well. Option one is the worst, don't pick that one.
ReplyDeleteLike many have said, I do not agree with the status quo for all the reasons listed above. This give the Chief Justice way too much power and the Chief Justice can do what they want because he/she doesn't have the fear of being not re-elected.
ReplyDeleteOption 2 is pretty good because that's how the current supreme court justices are selected and that's a good choice. I think that this has some good checks and balances but not as much as option 4.
I think option 3 isn't as good as option 2. The judges in the circuit court are like any other federal judges. They are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. So in this case option 2 still sounds the best.
Option 4 is probably the best because it spreads the choices and can possibly create more checks and balances. Like Diana said, the majority and minority leaders of both houses would have a good variety of people choosing the judges.
Overall, I'd say that it's option 4 then 2, then 3, and finally 1.
I would pick option 3. This allows for diversity of opinions as well as guaranteeing representation of each federal circuit. I share the common sentiment that option one is a poor choice because it doesn’t give a diverse background to the justices on the committee and it easily opens the door for bias. Option two is the same as the method used for selecting Supreme Court justices and would also work, but I prefer the idea of having representation of the various parts of the country. Likewise, option four would also work, because it does promote diversity in who is choosing the justices, but it is less directly representative of the different parts of the nation (the circuits).
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to surveillance, I think having it in the hands of the people is the best option. Therefore, I definitely think something should be changed and option one isn't really an option.
ReplyDeleteI would cast my vote for option two. I echo Mary's thoughts in that option two goes through two branches of government and therefore has the most assurity. I affirmatively echo Tara's words about the high chance for variability in judge ideologies based on the fact that the most a president could serve is eight years, which shortens the number of judges she/he could appoint and thereby creating more variability. Having the President appoint and the Senate approve ties all three branches together, and arguably brings the people the closest to the actual decision; the people elect Senators and (besides the usage of the electoral college) the President, whereas the Majority and Minority leaders are chosen by their respective houses.
When looking at option three, it should be noted that a Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit Court is appointed for life. Normally this would be fine because it can create stability, but because of the abrupt and ever-changing nature of the digital age, I think it's best to have a little more variability and less stagnancy.
Option four seems ok, but, as with option three, there isn't a way to check the power of the person appointing the judge which could lead to problems.
The problem with option one is that it concentrates too much power in one individual. Option 4 is too dependent on the two party system. Option 2 is already in widespread use, so that's probably a good system, but it allows for filibustering, so option 3 is probably best because it aggregates the finest legal minds in the country.
ReplyDeleteI like option three. I believe that being able to draw appointments from diverse avenues only strengthens the parity of the appointments. Diversification is a commonly used term in subjects like business and economics to minimize risk. I believe that this concept applies here, and the risk that is minimized is the risk of having these appointments concentrated in a few areas. I agree with what Sheyne said about having option 4 be too dependent on the two party system.
ReplyDelete