Is FISA gaining authority over the Supreme Court?

Judge John Bates, who is director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, recently indicated that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts asked him to write a letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein concerning the proposed 'Public Interest Advocate' advocated by the presidents review panel to examine U.S. electronic spying activities. It seems that Judge Bates, as well as the Chief Justice are vehemently against any kind of representation on the part of the public in this matter.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/14/us-usa-security-idUSBREA0D1LO20140114

After all, this is about spying, and spying is about keeping everything secret and hidden from the public. What Judge Bates, and obviously Chief Justice Roberts don't seem to understand is that this issue is also about freedom, and the right to privacy in 'their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.'

In his letter, Judge Bates adds that if 'a public advocate were allowed broad participation in the FISA court it "could actually undermine the Courts' ability to receive complete and accurate information on the matters before them." '…. WOW.... Of course it's already been reported that the NSA has not always told the truth even to the FISA Court in its (secret) proceedings, and of course we all know that they cannot tell the truth in an open and public forum (Clapper lies to Congress)...

Yet this latest action appears to move the judiciary closer to the idea of secret courts in general. So my question is simple and straightforward: Is the consequence of this latest action, a tacit agreement between judges that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Court has assumed, or is attempting to assume a superior role over the Supreme Court? Of course, that action would be taken in secret...  Is Chief Justice Roberts saying that there should not be a public advocate in any circumstance before the FISA Court? It certainly has the makings of this kind of message.

It's 'States Rights' all over again....

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/14/us-usa-healthcare-southcarolina-idUSBREA0D0YB20140114

South Carolina Republican state Senator Tom Davis said that lawmakers have found a way to stop implementation of the U.S. Affordable Care Act, which could provide a method for other states to follow. Opponents of the federal law are looking to South Carolina for a "template, something that other states can follow,"....

History is repeating itself right here. It was South Carolina who was the first to secede from the Union in December, 1860. It's congressmen and senators saying that the nation was looking to South Carolina as a leader against Federalism from Washington.... 'Georgia lawmakers said they would follow South Carolina's lead'... It was also Georgia that seceded 30 days after South Carolina (January, 1861)...

Yes, it sure looks like history is repeating itself....

Why do Americans care what these Wall Street Duheads do with their spare time?

http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-news/feel-guilty-enjoying-excess-wolf-wall-street-015229556.html

I haven't seen the movie, but I don't care how much drugs these guys snort, smoke or inhale. I don't care how many women they are planking – prostitutes or not. What I care about is when these DuHeads purposely tank the entire world economy with their toxic made-up investments. Then they laugh while they watch the world go into an economic tailspin, and they don't do 10 minutes of jail time.... And I don't mean jail time for doing drugs ! ! ! The fact that a Business Insider report that hordes of stockbrokers were cheering the movie at an early New York screening... Who cares? We all know that these clowns are crooks anyway... Let them snort themselves into a rehab hospital for all I care. They are probably the only people in America who can afford healthcare anyway.... What I care about is that these 'Wall-Streeter's' also cheer when 10% of the American workforce loses their jobs, their homes and their retirement funds because of the investment shenanigans they pull.

Laugh of the Day:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/05/us-israel-palestinians-kerry-idUSBRE9BU0KE20140105

'Israel and the Palestinians are making progress towards a "framework agreement" to guide their talks on a formal peace deal' ….. what a hoot. Does anyone in their right mind think that a 'peace deal' is possible between the Israel and the Palestinians ? ? Lets take a poll to ask this question on its face value. No questions about whose fault anything is. No questions about who was there first. No questions about who is right and who is wrong... Just one question: 'Do you think it's possible for Israel and the Palestinians to conclude a peace deal?... I'll wager the preponderance is 'NO'...

Note: You can always tell when a President is in his last couple of years in office. They always announce that a 'peace deal' between Israel and the Palestinians might be possible....

War in Iraq:

The War in Iraq is almost over...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/04/us-iraq-violence-idUSBREA0304I20140104

After billions and billions spent on a war for WMD's (with no tax increase to pay for it), and a decade saying 'the world is better off without Saddam', to go along with the 'waste' of American military prowess, we have returned to the beginning. Good thing we declared victory a long time ago, huh?

The ACA penalty:

Finally, another thought about ObamaCare (ACA) and the penalty I will face. I must ask myself why I would pay a minimum of $300 a month ($3600 annually) for insurance I can't use, because I am an expat who lives overseas, instead of paying even a 2.5% penalty on my paltry $30k annual income, which would only be $750 dollars total ? ? Why would I do this?