From the Review Court...these are all Ronald Reagan's appointees...and most of the main court members have been appointed in the past five years. What they represent...is mostly the Republican view of a judge...that they observe the constitution and not make new laws out of thin air. And it would appear that they stayed true to their word. I'm betting that the administration used highly classified information to point toward to the targets of the surveillance, and they refused to fully brief the members of FISA as to the complete picture...they simply demanded an approved and stamped document...and the court shook their head in disbelief at the limited information provided. The term "trust us"...probably was used a number of times.
What happens in January....based on various blogs around the internet...is a meeting where the court will meet and possibly determine that they have no ability to control or administer the laws of the country...and they may all step down. A very drastic step and probably would guarantee senate hearings that really drag down this president.
The president really needs to step up to the plate and ensure that this relationship with the FISA court is reestablished and they work with them...otherwise, I see 2006 as a very dark year for the administration and virtually no escape from lengthly senate affair. You can talk about freedom and security all you want...but they only exist because of our dedication to the constitution over 200 years. I will stand by Ronald Reagan's ideals...they are even more worthly today than they were in 1985...we don't need courts inventing laws out of thin air, and we don't need administrations dissolving laws into thin air.
You need to read "FISA vs. The Constitution" in the WSJ opinionjournal.com. It lays out the argument cogently that the FISA court cannot trump the President's executive authority to protect the country that is inherent in his office.
Let 'em quit. From all appearances, they were obstructing the NSA anyway.
work with them to accomplish what? to allow the FISA judges to decide for themselves what the NSA's mechanism for handling foreign communications should be?
if we cannot check the judiciary on these matters - then where can we check them? if we can't elect an executive, accountable to us through the vote, to conduct matters involving war and foreign powers, what powers do we want our elected executive to have? do we have to cede these powers to the courts as the final arbiters too?
"limited information" you claim? the information provided, from what we know about this, was likely quite straightforward:
"we want to wiretap anyone calling from or calling into these X hundred phone numbers obtained from laptops and cellphones captured from terrorists, as well as other communications traces".
imagine you are a FISA judge and the executive comes to you with that simple one sentence request - do you grant or deny it?
let's say you deny it. what the hell do you expect the executive to do next?
Pure speculation, but as you note, that sort of event would elevate the discussion relating to the 4th amendment in general (rather than the current debate that boils down to "terrorists have no 4th amendment") into public consciousness.
I doubt the FISA panel will resign its FISA assignment though.