> It's not his place to rule on it. Not even because "just following orders", but for starters, because nobody has challenged it.
Then he is still responsible for his role in it.
> By this logic, almost every motion to almost every court in a real case is a rubber stamp.
If you believe that, you haven't followed many cases. Motions gets denied extremely often. Not least because there is a general understanding that it is worth fighting them because they often get denied, but also unilaterally by the judge when the judge believes on party is going too far.
This is what is bizarre about the FISC and that makes it worthy of being called a rubber stamp. There's absolutely zero indication that they are providing anything remotely like oversight, other than making sure the paperwork has the right wording to let the judges wash their hands of the matter.
Then he is still responsible for his role in it.
> By this logic, almost every motion to almost every court in a real case is a rubber stamp.
If you believe that, you haven't followed many cases. Motions gets denied extremely often. Not least because there is a general understanding that it is worth fighting them because they often get denied, but also unilaterally by the judge when the judge believes on party is going too far.
This is what is bizarre about the FISC and that makes it worthy of being called a rubber stamp. There's absolutely zero indication that they are providing anything remotely like oversight, other than making sure the paperwork has the right wording to let the judges wash their hands of the matter.