[tptacek]

If FISC was an Article III court, wouldn't its judges have lifetime tenure? Wouldn't it's judges be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate?

I don't think membership consisting of judges who would otherwise preside over Article III courts necessarily makes FISC an Article III court, and judges appointed by the Chief Justice actually suggest the opposite.

There's an article at the Yale Law Review that criticizes FISC for not being a regular Article III court.

[spligak]

You would think they'd have lifetime appointments as other federal courts do, but it's important to note FISC (and its review process) isn't the final stop on some Orwellian and diabolical train.

It is very easy to get caught up in examining the mechanism itself as a way of stamping out the abuse of the mechanism. As much as I dislike what the court represents, I can't fully qualify its dissolution.

In 50 USC § 1803 (b) it specifically states the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the decisions. The Title itself is designed for expediency and proximity - something its "parent" court isn't designed for.

[tptacek]

I agree with all of this. Also: I don't think it's settled as to whether FISC is an Article III court or bound by the same rules as an Article III court; for instance, Orrin Kerr doesn't seem to know.

I don't think the evidence we have is reliable enough to call someone "wildly misinformed" or "intentionally misleading", though.

[spligak]

> I don't think the evidence we have is reliable enough to call someone "wildly misinformed" or "intentionally misleading", though.

Perhaps not. However, my original challenge to rayiner's comment has produced far more meaningful and mostly-cited comments. Could it have been less inflammatory? Absolutely. Would it have produced this discussion if it had been? Uncertain.

The original comment did not add any value to the post. I have never read Orrin Kerr's writings and both of you citing him caused me to do so.

Perhaps citing Kerr in the original comment, as he has well regarded opinions on the subject, would have been additive as I assume rayiner intended to be.

After all, if we don't challenge for citation and additional information, what are we doing here?

[tptacek]

I agree with all of this, but it would be nice if the decorum rules on HN included begging pardon or even apologizing in a case like this. At the very least, when you make an inflammatory claim about someone else in a thread, notice and acknowledge when it's refuted.