# 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:** 1\ **Showing post:** 7
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2008, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-fisa-is-exclusive-means-for-wiretapping-potus-cant-use-cinc-power/455200/7 "2008-07-05T03:34:24Z")
[QUOTE=Oy!] Also, **Bricker** , why do you believe the case will be reviewed \*de novo \* and could you explain exactly what that means to those of us who are not lawyers and haven’t encountered the term before? I mean, going back to my high school Latin, it looks like **of** or **from new** , but I don’t quite know how that applies here. [/QUOTE] Sure. An appellate court has several different “modes” of review. When a trial court has made a finding of fact, the appellate court is pretty much bound to accept it. The only way a finding of fact may be disturbed on appeal is if the appellate court determines that it’s without any support in the record. But a conclusion of law is different. When a trial court reaches a conclusion about what the law is, the appellate court has no particular deference for that conclusion. They don’t give it any weight at all; they consider the question afresh, anew, from the beginning – “_de novo_”. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-fisa-is-exclusive-means-for-wiretapping-potus-cant-use-cinc-power/455200)._