Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
The price of process is -- party which means it's one sided.
And that's not a good thing.
Under the five cents amendment sacrifice -- and our proves program medic.
And that I submit and we'll discuss for a few minutes I do not consider to be a judicial function.
In my experience which is long with the -- a court.
Folks don't realize that it's a group of independent federal judges.
Who sit and operate under statutory regime to review requests by the government to use certain authorities to gather information.
And it is anything but a rubber stamp.
Former bush deputy attorney general James combing out trying to be the new FBI director -- confirmation today.
Before that a former -- suggestion has problems with the class of Cordoba with the panel.
-- what about this court and the fight to know more about it both on Capitol Hill and around the country.
Well I think that's the big issue even if you support the existence of fires is wanting to know more about the rulings for example you know they have the Justice Department say mission and we shouldn't be able to see with the rulings are that it's -- -- New York Times is reporting that it's sort of set up just parallel Supreme Court that there re interpreting the Fourth Amendment.
In ways that you know that we need to understand and so it's hard to really come to a conclusion about it until more information -- released about a so we can actually review what they're doing.
Some of the reporting including the Wall Street Journal.
Jason said that the court made the determination that.
Relevant was the key word what was relevant so that it opened up a broad investigative possibility to.
Kind of suck up all kinds of information because it may be relevant.
To various investigations.
Well I don't see the problem really is that the court thing to one -- -- being too much.
Of rubber stamp I think the problem is that the law the -- -- -- acting approaches on executive war powers.
I think it needs to be scrapped we don't want.
-- the writers of the constitution made the president.
The commander in chief the -- -- -- put him on national security now with the secret court full of unelected judges.
I want our our our our -- snooping on al-Qaeda and when something goes wrong I wanna be able to turn to elected officials.
Congress or the attorney general's entrance the president is -- to the people for answers.
I don't want to be able I don't want congress to be in a position to pass the block and say.
We went to this by the court they didn't let us do what we needed to do.
Don't plan -- and that's what and in effect the plaza accord provides an excuse for an elected officials not to be held accountable Charles.
I want our schools should be listening I don't know kind of but I don't like I -- listening in on our calls unless there is.
You know a national security.
Reason that rises to a certain level I think we have to have -- record it's good to have a review.
You cannot have unfettered executive action on this but the problem is -- the finds a -- I think that the emphasis here.
He's completely wrong isn't as if he's eleven independent judges all of a sudden -- I recognize their power.
And run the national security state and decide what's allowed and what's -- Yes they rulings -- abroad -- they have allowed almost everything but the problem it's.
The congress but congress always has to do today -- -- -- -- new statue and then define.
This standard as I mean -- the congress that has decided.
That big gathering of information from everybody and then looking for the patterns we know that 99% of the information is not for anybody.
Who's who's under suspicion is okay if that is an okay you took congress sort of stipulate.
In the statue and the far as the court will rule accordingly this is an issue that congress has to.
Has to address it's not anything that defies the -- are responsible for the independently.
What about that argument that the former -- a judge made that.
There's no adversary argument number one number two all of these judges are approved by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court they're appointed.
-- they're not to the present -- -- congress there aren't just appointed by.
And in this case all of them have been appointed by Chief Justice John -- You know I think I think that's an incredibly important case and it didn't admit that you know -- was made.
Who's making that adversarial case here I mean they're they're being presented a case by the government.
-- who's making the case against the government I just don't I could not disagree more of the idea that we don't wanna have somebody questioning what the executive is doing.
I think that's probably the biggest problem that we've seen recently is that there's this feeling that there is no oversight who is.
You know our president decides to someone needs to be killed by drown what shouldn't somebody else have some -- -- -- -- and I think in this case it's the same way these judges.
What does the national security expertise.
How can we hold them accountable.
When they school -- -- And that's why we have left represented that you think that he's also just that is why you have to have different people making cases on judges are expected -- to rule on the -- The answers not to abolish the size accord and not to have every -- security request.
Turn into trade on the Martin trial -- you know the lawyers on either side I think whom you trust him have a good judges but let the congress.
Defying the contours of -- allowed.
Very specifically and that solves a problem.
Filter by section