How can this country, with one side of its mouth, say that location data on a phone requires a warrant, but then say that browsing history doesn't. I don't understand.
This leads to all sorts of "I'm not touching you" shenanigans where getting your data from somewhere else is perfectly fine, so long as they're not performing something that could be called a search on you specifically.
"We don't have enough money to oversee the NSA" - FISA courts
Repeat ad infinitum
The recent act by Congress does not mean it is actually legal to access browsing history without a warrant. It will be interesting to follow the development of this issue through the courts.
While it is true that Trump has appointed a record number of judges during his term, it’s still only about 1 in 4[0].
As for the Courts of Appeals specifically, it’s about the same. Wikipedia says (as of May 21), he’s appointed 51[1], of which there’s a total of 179[2].
[0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/one-in-every-four-ci... (“Trump nominees make up 1 in 4 U.S. circuit court judges.”)
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appoint... (“As of May 21, 2020, the United States Senate has confirmed 196 Article III judges nominated by President Trump, including ... 51 judges for the United States Courts of Appeals, ...”; “There is currently 1 vacancy on the U.S. Courts of Appeals, ...”)
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_courts_of_appeal... (“There are currently 179 judgeships on the U.S. courts of appeals authorized by Congress in 28 U.S.C. § 43 pursuant to Article III of the U.S. Constitution.”)