Let me clarify: I'm not suggesting that precedent and consistency demand one way or the other, I'm saying precedent and consistency only matter until it's a cor

Let me clarify: I'm not suggesting that precedent and consistency demand one way or the other, I'm saying precedent and consistency only matter until it's a corporation with lots of political donations brought to bear, in which case precedent and consistency cease to matter. Therefore, arguing precedent and consistency is relatively pointless. My point was an exercise in "anything goes, so make the law fit the argument." That's what Chevron would do. In other words: What's the desired outcome? That corporations cannot wantonly create mass surveillance any more than the government can. So make the law fit the desired reality: extend the 4th amendment to say that privacy is a basic human right and people cannot contractually sign it away any more than they can contractually sign away themselves into forced labor. A clever judge could outlaw H1 visas in the same ruling and get 2 birds with 1 stone.