SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
The Supreme Court on Friday put new restraints on law enforcement's access to the ever-increasing amount of private information about Americans available in the digital age.
In the specific case before the court, the justices ruled that authorities generally must obtain a warrant to gain access to cell-tower records that can provide a virtual timeline and map of a person's whereabouts.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the 5 to 4 decision, in which he was joined by the court's liberal members. Each of the dissenting conservatives wrote separate opinions.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Supreme Court Rules that Warrant is Needed to Access Cell Tower Records
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 41 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
* m2 stares at the monitor... it looks like a hamburger...
m2 - that's a bad sign
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Whoever on Saturday June 23 2018, @04:55PM (10 children)
Strict constitutionalists don't exist. Only idealogues who claim to be strict constitutionalists, typically when they are taking rights away from individuals.
No strict constitutionalist would go along with the current definition of the Interstate Commerce clause, where the word "affects" has been added in by the Supreme Court.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 23 2018, @05:52PM (4 children)
I agree with the latter and say you're projecting on the former. I am absolutely a strict constitutionalist. I believe every single bit of it needs to be interpreted as it was originally written and meant, even the bits I disagree with. If it's going to be changed, it needs to be done via amendment rather than judicial fiat.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 23 2018, @09:28PM (3 children)
Okay, what's the original meaning of "probable cause" and the qualifications for "unreasonable search and seizures"? Please site your references. Or should the judges rule nothing is probable cause and every search is unreasonable and delete those words from the amendment via fiat?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 23 2018, @09:48PM (2 children)
Every search without a warrant is unreasonable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 23 2018, @09:56PM (1 child)
Then why isn't the wording, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against Warrantless searches and seizures..."? I see no way for a strict interpretation can lead to your conclusion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 24 2018, @09:30AM
Well, I'm not a strict constitutionalist. All I care about is maximizing individual liberties.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by frojack on Saturday June 23 2018, @06:35PM (4 children)
Yes they do.
Not only in the absolute but also in degrees.
There are none on this court, because liberals will never allow that to happen, their agenda needs a "flexible" constitution, one that can be changed by presidential edict when they are in power. Ok, go ahead, mod this troll. But you KNOW its correct.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Whoever on Saturday June 23 2018, @07:53PM (3 children)
I find it hilarious that conservatives continue to blame the actions of Republicans (the very people the conservatives voted for) on liberals.
Get a clue and take responsibility for your own actions. Stop being a snowflake.
Republicans stole a Supreme Court nomination from Obama and put in their own man. If he isn't a strict constructionist, then it's entirely the fault of Republicans and liberals had nothing to do with it.
(Score: 0, Troll) by frojack on Saturday June 23 2018, @09:39PM (2 children)
So in your world, all a Republican had to do was nominate, and that assured presence on the bench?
How do you find your own ass to wipe it when you are that dumb?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Whoever on Saturday June 23 2018, @09:47PM (1 child)
Republicans have a majority in the Senate and they changed the rules to allow a vote by simple majority for Supreme Court nominations, so, yes, it is that simple.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-senate.html [nytimes.com]
You really are in denial, aren't you? Continuing to blame liberals for the regressive, backward policies being foisted on the country by conservatives.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday June 24 2018, @06:01AM
You can't possibly be that naive. Entirely too many fingers in entirely too many pies for that to ever happen even if you have 100% of the Senate from your party.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.