3 ms·

For those of us not well-versed in these sorts of things, what were the two cases?

by bratsche 11y ago

InTheArena 11y ago
Jones and Kylo. Kylo held that the Government could not use infrared scanners to track individuals inside of their house without a warrant, while Jones held that the government could not use GPS trackers on cars, even in public, because it had to trespass to install the GPS tracker. He also dissented with the forced DNA testing of anyone charged with a crime, and from warrent-less suspecion-less traffic stops. http://reason.com/archives/2016/02/16/antonin-scalia-was-a-great-jurist-for-cr http://reason.com/archives/2016/02/16/antonin-scalia-was-a-g...
- lern_too_spel 11y ago
  There is no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution. Some of Scalia's rulings happen to favor privacy while others do not. For example, he also said the Miranda ruling is judicial overeach, so in his view, you have rights (privacy or otherwise) only if you know about them ahead of time. Roe v. Wade established precedent for an implicit right to privacy interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Scalia has said that interpretation is wrong.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - InTheArena 11y ago
    no, but the 4th amendment (which I referenced above) is the usual proxy. Even the most ardent of abortion backers will admit that Roe v Wade is flawed by every measure of judicial practice (which is why the entire line of thought advanced by Roe v Wade has not gotten any traction in any other ruling). Only the fact that it's tied to such a hot-button issue has kept courts from over-turning it. The 4th amendments and all writs law is being broadly interpreted by this judge to give the government the power to effectively enforce a warrant against the entire population of the United States that uses iPhones. Scalia would have been all over that like white on rice.

3 ms·

For those of us not well-versed in these sorts of things, what were the two cases?

by bratsche 11y ago

For those of us not well-versed in these sorts of things, what were the two cases?

InTheArena 11y ago
Jones and Kylo. Kylo held that the Government could not use infrared scanners to track individuals inside of their house without a warrant, while Jones held that the government could not use GPS trackers on cars, even in public, because it had to trespass to install the GPS tracker. He also dissented with the forced DNA testing of anyone charged with a crime, and from warrent-less suspecion-less traffic stops. http://reason.com/archives/2016/02/16/antonin-scalia-was-a-great-jurist-for-cr http://reason.com/archives/2016/02/16/antonin-scalia-was-a-g...
- lern_too_spel 11y ago
  There is no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution. Some of Scalia's rulings happen to favor privacy while others do not. For example, he also said the Miranda ruling is judicial overeach, so in his view, you have rights (privacy or otherwise) only if you know about them ahead of time. Roe v. Wade established precedent for an implicit right to privacy interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Scalia has said that interpretation is wrong.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - InTheArena 11y ago
    no, but the 4th amendment (which I referenced above) is the usual proxy. Even the most ardent of abortion backers will admit that Roe v Wade is flawed by every measure of judicial practice (which is why the entire line of thought advanced by Roe v Wade has not gotten any traction in any other ruling). Only the fact that it's tied to such a hot-button issue has kept courts from over-turning it. The 4th amendments and all writs law is being broadly interpreted by this judge to give the government the power to effectively enforce a warrant against the entire population of the United States that uses iPhones. Scalia would have been all over that like white on rice.