3 ms·

The fourth amendment is pretty broad. It is not at all an unreasonable reading of it to say Americans have an enumerated rate to privacy. "The right of the peo

The fourth amendment is pretty broad. It is not at all an unreasonable reading of it to say Americans have an enumerated rate to privacy. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Combine that with the fact that the precedent up until very recently took that reading, and it's not at all incorrect to argue that Americans have a constitutional right to privacy. What is digital surveillance, but a search of one's papers? It's not a police search, but the constitution predates modern policing, lending credence to the most general reading possible.

MomoXenosaga 4y ago
The Supreme Court is basically an extension of the Republican party now. The fourth amendment is only as broad as it is interpreted by the nine ring wraiths of Justice.
- ETH_start 4y ago
  The Supreme Court is not a political organization. The rulings being made now are a continuation of 140 years of judicial precedent that alloted states enormous latitude in instituting their own laws, and that only ended in 1937, when FDR interfered with the SCOTUS's independence by threatening to "pack the court".
  - cafard 4y ago
    Quite a number of American presidents would have told you that the Supreme Court is very much a political organization: Jefferson, Lincoln, and both Roosevelts come to mind.
  - lovich 4y ago
    > The Supreme Court is not a political organization. They overturned a precedent from a majority opinion written in _2020_ by a sitting member of the current court, and solely because the membership of the court changed and reinterpreted the legality of it. How else do you describe that behavior as anything but political?
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > The Supreme Court is not a political organization. As someone with a Political Science degree that includes specific study of judicial politics in the United States, let me say that this is, very much, not true, has never been true, and is just silly. > The rulings being made now are a continuation of 140 years of judicial precedent ...that has seesawed back and forth with the political winds over time... > that alloted states enormous latitude in instituting their own laws Even if that was an accurate simple explanation of any 140 years of precedent some of those recent controversial decisions denied states this ability, which complicates the narrative. But it is perfectly consistent since it did so in favor of conservative policy preferences, just like the decisions that expanded state power. > and that only ended in 1937, when FDR interfered with the SCOTUS's independence by threatening to "pack the court". Aside from the documentary evidence that the switch of on one justices position that ended that threat actually happened before the threat was issued, there weren't 140 years of precedent on the application of the 14th Amendment before 1937, as there was only about half that time between the 14A and 1937. The Supreme Court, because of lifetime tenure, often doesn't quite reflect contemporary partisan divides in the way one might naively expect, but it is quite political, and often partisan.
  - yellowapple 4y ago
    > The Supreme Court is not a political organization. It sure had me fooled.
  - RandomUser4567 4y ago
    One expects to read some foolish things online, but I have to say, this is next level uninformed. Do you actually believe this?
- krapp 4y ago
  Specifically, it's an extension of the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation.
Gunax 4y ago
Yea so I thibk that's a readonable argument. And I recognize this is a news article, and not like... constitutional law discussion. But I think the real origin of this article is: the author is upset about FOSTA, a view I happen to share. But it's out of the news cycle. So he draws a tenuous connection to a current event, making it both relevant again, and stirring some telelogical history. But the recent decisions are not really based on FOSTA, and as far as I can tell there was no legal precedent set by these acts that had anything to do with the recent decisions.

MomoXenosaga 4y ago

The Supreme Court is basically an extension of the Republican party now. The fourth amendment is only as broad as it is interpreted by the nine ring wraiths of Justice.

ETH_start 4y ago
The Supreme Court is not a political organization. The rulings being made now are a continuation of 140 years of judicial precedent that alloted states enormous latitude in instituting their own laws, and that only ended in 1937, when FDR interfered with the SCOTUS's independence by threatening to "pack the court".
- cafard 4y ago
  Quite a number of American presidents would have told you that the Supreme Court is very much a political organization: Jefferson, Lincoln, and both Roosevelts come to mind.
- lovich 4y ago
  > The Supreme Court is not a political organization. They overturned a precedent from a majority opinion written in _2020_ by a sitting member of the current court, and solely because the membership of the court changed and reinterpreted the legality of it. How else do you describe that behavior as anything but political?
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > The Supreme Court is not a political organization. As someone with a Political Science degree that includes specific study of judicial politics in the United States, let me say that this is, very much, not true, has never been true, and is just silly. > The rulings being made now are a continuation of 140 years of judicial precedent ...that has seesawed back and forth with the political winds over time... > that alloted states enormous latitude in instituting their own laws Even if that was an accurate simple explanation of any 140 years of precedent some of those recent controversial decisions denied states this ability, which complicates the narrative. But it is perfectly consistent since it did so in favor of conservative policy preferences, just like the decisions that expanded state power. > and that only ended in 1937, when FDR interfered with the SCOTUS's independence by threatening to "pack the court". Aside from the documentary evidence that the switch of on one justices position that ended that threat actually happened before the threat was issued, there weren't 140 years of precedent on the application of the 14th Amendment before 1937, as there was only about half that time between the 14A and 1937. The Supreme Court, because of lifetime tenure, often doesn't quite reflect contemporary partisan divides in the way one might naively expect, but it is quite political, and often partisan.
- yellowapple 4y ago
  > The Supreme Court is not a political organization. It sure had me fooled.
- RandomUser4567 4y ago
  One expects to read some foolish things online, but I have to say, this is next level uninformed. Do you actually believe this?
krapp 4y ago
Specifically, it's an extension of the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation.

Gunax 4y ago

Yea so I thibk that's a readonable argument. And I recognize this is a news article, and not like... constitutional law discussion. But I think the real origin of this article is: the author is upset about FOSTA, a view I happen to share. But it's out of the news cycle. So he draws a tenuous connection to a current event, making it both relevant again, and stirring some telelogical history. But the recent decisions are not really based on FOSTA, and as far as I can tell there was no legal precedent set by these acts that had anything to do with the recent decisions.