# Judge rules FISA is "exclusive" means for wiretapping -- POTUS can't use CinC power **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 3, 2008, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-fisa-is-exclusive-means-for-wiretapping-potus-cant-use-cinc-power/455200 "2008-07-03T16:17:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2008, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-fisa-is-exclusive-means-for-wiretapping-potus-cant-use-cinc-power/455200/21 "2008-07-10T03:09:00Z")
[QUOTE=Oy!] Wouldn’t the Lindburgh law cover that situation? Any death that is the result of a felony’s (attempted murder) being commited is 1st degree murder? Or is that a myth from my childhood? [/quote] No, that would like apply as well. But I only stuck murder in there because your original hypo was for murder, and I was already changing too much. If we made it wounding, though, we’d still have the doctrine of transferred intent to keep the crime as serious as it should be. So, George is wounded but doesn’t die. > [@](#): > > I’m not certain of your last sentence, so let me confirm: do you mean that the appellate court would review the evidence from the start, rather than looking at any aspect of the first trial? Just want to make sure. Not review the evidence – review the conclusions of law. The evidence, the facts, they are stuck with. They may _recite_ the facts; they don’t review them for correctness. ---
**Author:** ![Oy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bc8723/32.png) [@Oy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oy)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2008, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-fisa-is-exclusive-means-for-wiretapping-potus-cant-use-cinc-power/455200/22 "2008-07-10T03:16:01Z")
OK, let me get this straight. I understand that the evidence is the evidence. Does the appellate court review the evidence to decide for themselves whether Jack was or wasn’t planning to kill Steve or do they accept the lower court’s decision and review the legal decision as to whether or not that makes him guilty of Steve’s murder or both? I’m sorry, **bricker** ; I’m not trying to be obtuse, really. I just achieve obtuseness naturally. ---
**Author:** ![Oy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bc8723/32.png) [@Oy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oy)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2008, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-fisa-is-exclusive-means-for-wiretapping-potus-cant-use-cinc-power/455200/23 "2008-07-11T04:27:11Z")
OK, there’s already a case in court against this. I have two questions. One I want to verify. if any lower court rules against this suit, does that shut it down forever, or can the plaintiff appeal? Two, unfortunately, the recent (read, past eight years or even 12 years) have shown an increasing politiciization of the judiciary along with the polarization of the citizenry according to the Newsweek 7/7-7/14 double issue (by Stuart Taylor, Jr.), which article I can’t seem to find on the web. It’s on Page 46 of the magazine itself. You really can’t talk about liberal activist justices without also talking about conservative activist justices these days, of whom Scalia seems to be the most extreme example, followed closely by Thomas. So I’m really afraid of what will happen even if this goes up to the Supreme court. Because even if the justices who really want to retire do so under an Obama admin, we’re still no better off; we are simply holding the same position as we do now, where the fairly hard conservatives hold five seats. I don’t see any of the hardline right wingers eager to retire. We could get lucky and Scalia or Gonzales could have a sudden desire to ‘spend more time with his family’ (and this justice department thing might force that on Gonzales as alternative to impeachment - it certainly _should_), but let’s face it - supreme court justices are appointed for life, and with good reason generally speaking. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2008, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-fisa-is-exclusive-means-for-wiretapping-potus-cant-use-cinc-power/455200/24 "2008-07-11T15:02:22Z")
[QUOTE=Oy!] Does the appellate court review the evidence to decide for themselves whether Jack was or wasn’t planning to kill Steve … [/quote] No. They accept that Jack was planning to kill Steve. > [@](#): > > …or do they accept the lower court’s decision and review the legal decision as to whether or not that makes him guilty of Steve’s murder… George is the one that died (or, in our latest modification, is injured). They review the legal decision that planning to kill Steve, actively _trying_ to kill Steve, but actually killing or wounding George amounts to a particular crime. ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2008, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-fisa-is-exclusive-means-for-wiretapping-potus-cant-use-cinc-power/455200/25 "2008-07-13T15:54:11Z")
Hi All, I’m sorry for repeating myself, but let’s imagine FISA does not constrain the president’s wiretapping powers - Are they then completely unrestrained or does some other law pick up the slack? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-fisa-is-exclusive-means-for-wiretapping-potus-cant-use-cinc-power/455200.md?page=1)