5 ms·

Modeless, you are right. This court should be subject to the full light of day and a true adversarial process. All opinions published. With judges having to put

Modeless, you are right. This court should be subject to the full light of day and a true adversarial process. All opinions published. With judges having to put their names on the opinions and own up to them.

dfc 13y ago
The same can/should be said for "unpublished opinions"[1] of any court. I do not understand how in a common law system a judge can make a ruling and say "I don't want to be held accountable for this rash decision I just filed. Let's mark it unpublished and make sure it never has to undergo much scrutiny." [1] This is a different unpublished than FISC decisions. Instead of "unpublished" read as "non-precedential opinions." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-publication_of_legal_opinions_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-publication_of_legal_opinio...
- joewallin 13y ago
  I agree with you dfc. Not publishing opinions in this day and age is nuts. Everything should be published.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    So no secret targets at all, then.
    - sneak 13y ago
      The court can publish opinions and cases without revealing identities or identifying details. This would have caught the insane redefinition of "relevant" that allows for receiving all call records for everyone, for example.