9 ms·

I support this ruling very strongly, and am super-glad it went the way it did. But at the same time, if it were as obvious as just quoting the constituion, it

I support this ruling very strongly, and am super-glad it went the way it did. But at the same time, if it were as obvious as just quoting the constituion, it wouldn't have made it to the Supreme Court in the first place. The SC decides cases that are difficult, not cases that are easy. Again, I believe this is the right decision, but it was no layup.

gabelevi 7y ago
This was just a federal court, not the Supreme Court.
toby- 7y ago
This didn't go to the Supreme Court. A district court in Boston heard this case.
abtinf 7y ago
There are many obvious cases that have made it to the Supreme Court. All it takes is a pig headed state or federal attorney general who insists on trying to uphold oppressive laws.
- dmix 7y ago
  Just like how FISA courts have granted NSA access to whatever they want because “the person will never find out their privacy was violated, therefore it’s not that big of a deal”. This is what the Yahoo attorneys were told in one of the few partially declassified FISA court hearings by the judge when they tried to push back on a sweeping warrant, which I believe involved full emails/information for not only a group of individuals but every person they talked to 2 hops, which quickly turns into thousands of people and companies.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- commanderjroc 7y ago
  Not exactly correct, the Supreme Court still has to accept the appeal onto its docket. Many of times, the Supreme Court will disregard the case and leave it to the lower courts to hash out.
michaelmrose 7y ago
Your argument is poorly formed this was an extremely obvious case of reading the plain language of the law as already quoted. Which court it arrived in isn't proof positive of the complexity of the law. Its proof of how irrational and diseased our system of government is. Perhaps you would like to advance an actual argument insofar as abusing access to portable computing devices to virtually riffle through an individuals entire life without benefit of court or even articulable suspicion? This is an intrusion into an individuals privacy worse than anything the framers could have imagined justified only a by a right to search that exists to discover contraband THINGS not contraband thoughts. Lest we forgot Texas had to have the supreme court tell them that they couldn't outlaw gay sex not that long ago.
- alasdair_ 7y ago
  >Your argument is poorly formed this was an extremely obvious case of reading the plain language of the law as already quoted. It's not at all obvious. For example: it's "obvious" that the constitution applies to the United States. Before you pass through the border, you are in a place that is NOT the United States. It's definitely not obvious that the constitution applies to places outside the US.
- compiler-guy 7y ago
  > Perhaps you would like to advance an actual argument > insofar as abusing access to portable computing devices > to virtually riffle through an individuals entire life > without benefit of court or even articulable suspicion? You seem to think that I support a side I don't. Cases like this don't survive motions for summary judgement if the one side is completely implausible. This case either survived a motion for summary judgement, or the "obvious" side didn't make such a motion. So if you think it is completely obvious, you should take it up with either the judge that denied the motion, or the lawyer who neglected to bring it. > Lest we forgot Texas had to have the supreme court tell them that they couldn't outlaw gay sex not that long ago. Any law that forbid it was unjust, and it should have been fixed long, long before Obergefell. But just because a law is unjust, doesn't mean that it is unconstitutional on its face, (cf, civil asset forfeiture--manifestly unjust and currently legal in many circumstances) This is a mistake many court-watchers make. It is a very safe bet that a 1950's court would have gone the other way on Obergefell, so on a plain language standard kind of fails. At some point, society gained a better understanding of what justice is and is not--and that is a great thing. But if the plain language didn't change, then the appeal to plain language isn't what gets us there. Rather, our understanding of justice did.

gabelevi 7y ago

This was just a federal court, not the Supreme Court.

toby- 7y ago

This didn't go to the Supreme Court. A district court in Boston heard this case.

abtinf 7y ago

There are many obvious cases that have made it to the Supreme Court. All it takes is a pig headed state or federal attorney general who insists on trying to uphold oppressive laws.

dmix 7y ago
Just like how FISA courts have granted NSA access to whatever they want because “the person will never find out their privacy was violated, therefore it’s not that big of a deal”. This is what the Yahoo attorneys were told in one of the few partially declassified FISA court hearings by the judge when they tried to push back on a sweeping warrant, which I believe involved full emails/information for not only a group of individuals but every person they talked to 2 hops, which quickly turns into thousands of people and companies.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
commanderjroc 7y ago
Not exactly correct, the Supreme Court still has to accept the appeal onto its docket. Many of times, the Supreme Court will disregard the case and leave it to the lower courts to hash out.

michaelmrose 7y ago

Your argument is poorly formed this was an extremely obvious case of reading the plain language of the law as already quoted. Which court it arrived in isn't proof positive of the complexity of the law. Its proof of how irrational and diseased our system of government is. Perhaps you would like to advance an actual argument insofar as abusing access to portable computing devices to virtually riffle through an individuals entire life without benefit of court or even articulable suspicion? This is an intrusion into an individuals privacy worse than anything the framers could have imagined justified only a by a right to search that exists to discover contraband THINGS not contraband thoughts. Lest we forgot Texas had to have the supreme court tell them that they couldn't outlaw gay sex not that long ago.

alasdair_ 7y ago
>Your argument is poorly formed this was an extremely obvious case of reading the plain language of the law as already quoted. It's not at all obvious. For example: it's "obvious" that the constitution applies to the United States. Before you pass through the border, you are in a place that is NOT the United States. It's definitely not obvious that the constitution applies to places outside the US.
compiler-guy 7y ago
> Perhaps you would like to advance an actual argument > insofar as abusing access to portable computing devices > to virtually riffle through an individuals entire life > without benefit of court or even articulable suspicion? You seem to think that I support a side I don't. Cases like this don't survive motions for summary judgement if the one side is completely implausible. This case either survived a motion for summary judgement, or the "obvious" side didn't make such a motion. So if you think it is completely obvious, you should take it up with either the judge that denied the motion, or the lawyer who neglected to bring it. > Lest we forgot Texas had to have the supreme court tell them that they couldn't outlaw gay sex not that long ago. Any law that forbid it was unjust, and it should have been fixed long, long before Obergefell. But just because a law is unjust, doesn't mean that it is unconstitutional on its face, (cf, civil asset forfeiture--manifestly unjust and currently legal in many circumstances) This is a mistake many court-watchers make. It is a very safe bet that a 1950's court would have gone the other way on Obergefell, so on a plain language standard kind of fails. At some point, society gained a better understanding of what justice is and is not--and that is a great thing. But if the plain language didn't change, then the appeal to plain language isn't what gets us there. Rather, our understanding of justice did.