SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Supreme Court announced Monday that it would hear a major digital privacy case that will determine whether law enforcement officials can demand user data stored by technology companies in other countries.
In 2013, federal investigators obtained a warrant for emails and identifying information tied to a Microsoft Outlook account they believed was being used to organize drug trafficking. The problem was that the emails were stored overseas in Ireland, where the anonymous user of the account registered as a resident.
...
If the court sides with the Department of Justice lawyers in this new case, the government will have unfettered access to the data tech companies store all over the world, provided it has a warrant. During the appeals court case, Microsoft's lawyers argued that the US is essentially trying to say that its laws extend across borders.
A superpower can demand all the extraterritoriality it wants.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @12:13AM (2 children)
They select a digital rights case about foreign data, so they can say things about foreign data and let rest of the judiciary misinterpret the ruling and apply it domestically. That way they can be fascist shitbags, and claim that it, "really wasn't what we said", like that fucktard Roberts did after Citizens United v. FEC.
Split the baby, see which side wins after the fact, and then claim victory. Total coward move. Not that it really matters, They are going to get Andrew Jackson'd no matter what they say. SCOTUS doesn't have enforcement ability, and the other branches don't really give a fuck about SCOTUS anymore.
They should stop getting to pick their own cases. The Citizens should get a vote on what cases they hear. Because really all I've seen in the past decade is a bunch of lily livered chicken shit over cases cherry picked to slather tainted apologies on bad precedent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @01:29AM (1 child)
The Supreme Court was added by the Federalists in the waning years of their control of Congress as a way to ensure they had control over the interpretation of laws after they had lost power right?
The Supreme Court has always been a travesty, like many other facets of the American method of Governance. Sadly righting the ship would require more work than the plebs are willing to put in, whether participation in the political process, vocal appeals to their local representatives, or full out revolution.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @01:34PM
Things changed after N-day, because it's easier for the average person to understand that major cities became irradiated ruins one morning because they allowed too much power to get in the hands of too few people. Of course, they build their own superstitions around it, however, at least in 2042, those superstitions seem to at least be somewhat more functional.
The Supreme Court was created in the Constitution of 1787. Are you talking about how the Marshall court [wikipedia.org] (1801-1835) created judicial review?
Do you have any good references demonstrating that Marshall was a Federalist? I'd been under the impression that Whigs and Democratic Republicans were the two major parties in that era. Marbury v. Madison was during the Jefferson/Burr (Democratic Republican) administration.