it makes the court more likely to defer to court arguments. i do give the president s panel credit for recommended that change. what do you think of that and should the president embrace it? one change that actually would be meaningful is if you actually put a public advocate at the court, basically a devil s advocate. right now the only party that can be heard in that court is the government. if only one side gets to have a lawyer making an argument, you can pretty much prove anything, no matter how false it is. that s why the government wins all the time at the fisa court. having a counteradvocate to contest the government s claim, it would be important, but not sufficient to curb all the abuses of the nsa. it would go to some of the