"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
Certainly seems like Congress could in fact have the constitutional authority to limit the Supreme Court's ability to review decisions from subordinate courts.
The dissenting justices are making it about something the case was not specifically about, the consensus judges don't have absurd opinions either, they looked at what the case was specifically about (does the first amendment have anything to do with this) and said nah. The question wasn't "do other articles of the constitution force us to curbstomp this court out of existence", and if it was there would probably be a different result.
If people want a case about the FISC's constitutionality itself, then they need to make a case about that. This case wasn't that.
One thing to understand is that this case got so much support because it was the only case they could put their energy on. If there was another or better case, all the motions and "friends of the court" briefs would have gone to that better case. The other cases don't exist because people accept the narrative that there is a big boogeyman this secret court protects us from, and so its always a compromise to try to get "studies" and reviewability done. But the thing about compromises is that they're usually just a long way doing the wrong thing. The original idea was the "right" thing, and compromises are often just the wrong thing and a waste of time. This time, the compromise idea of "lets make up a bill of rights reason why we can review court opinions" failed.
Congress is really the party that needs to reign this in. They created this mechanism and the Supreme Court is basically confirming congresses right to do so.
The reality is your representative(s) are to blame.
BTW I’m not saying this is moral, justified, makes sense, w.e. I fully think congress should completely demolish the security state. I’d rather live in a world with risks than a world constructed to keep me a prisoner.
The representatives from nearly 50 years ago, that is.
There are really just two reasons to keep things secret. One of them is to protect people from embarrassment.
Funny that we have to suspect everything now.
FISC was created by an act of congress. Now the executive branch is asserting that the court created by this act is not reviewable by the Supreme Court, established in the consitution. And except for strange bedfellows Gorsuch and Sotomayor, the court is letting them get away with it.
If congress has such power regarding foreign surveillance, why wouldn't they have the same for other issues, like establishing an unreviewable Sedition Court or an Ecological Justice Court? Like FISC, these courts would effectively get their own interpretations of the bill of rights and everything else, with no need to even publish the resulting case law.