"The FBI representative asserted that just because the act had been passed didn't mean they had carte blanche to surveil anyone they wanted, that judges still had approve their requests. That reasoning only flew so far, however, as the questioner pointed out that such requests by the FBI are always approved, never denied."[Emphasis mine, statement mine :-) ]

Actually, I didn't ask the original question, merely responded to the FBI guy's bullshit answer about them not being able to march right up and get warrants for whatever they want in terrorism cases (or rather cases they claim are related to a terrorism investigation - which means anything and everything they want it to mean). I threw my hand up about halfway through his answer (which he bumbled through briefly before resorting to more bullshit) to mention that an FBI agent had been barred from appearing before the FISA court ever again because he was blatantly lying to the court, and to talk a bit about National Security Letters (NSLs), which require 0 judicial oversight and which get a whole lot of non-content information from communications providers (like ISPs). Unfortunately for me, and fortunately for the poor FBI guy, they never called on me again after that. (It was a fed who was deciding who to call on).

If anyone saw who I am, forget who you saw - I don't exist. ;)