3 ms·
> The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 That's a very narrow victory though.
by daenz 14y ago
> The Supreme Court ruled 5-4
That's a very narrow victory though.
- Jtsummers 14y agoStill a victory. And, as I pointed out, this tech has much greater potential for interpretation as search as it's providing greater detail than "roof and walls are hot".
- dpeck 14y agoSeems like almost everything to come before the court comes back with a 5-4 ruling, at least everything important. Ideology is wired into the justices as much as it is everyone else.
- adolph 14y agoI read somewhere that the prevalence of narrow victories is by design (or evolution maybe): 1. the court chooses what cases to hear and is unlikely to spend time on anything they all agree on; 2. the body of precedent is large enough so that lower courts aren't making decisions the court would overturn with a wide margin; 3. the parameters of a majority opinion are written to get 5 of 4, anything else is overkill or watered down.
- bugmenot 14y agoThis does not include June 2012 Blueford v. Arkansas (6-3, Opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, on May 24, 2012) Coleman v. Johnson (9-0, Per Curiam, on May 29, 2012) Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the (5-4, Opinion by Justice Kennedy, on April 2, 2012) Gonzalez v. Thaler (8-1, opinion by Justice Sotomayor, on January 10, 2012) Greene v. Fisher (9-0, opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia on Nov. 8, 2011) Howes v. Fields (6-3, Opinion by Justice Alito, on February 21, 2012) Kawashima v. Holder (6-3, Opinion by Justice Thomas, on February 21, 2012) Lafler v. Cooper (5-4, Opinion by Justice Kennedy, on March 21, 2012) Maples v. Thomas, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections (7-2, opinion by Justice Ginsburg, on January 18, 2012) Martel v. Clair (9-0, Opinion by Justice Kagan, on March 5, 2012) Martinez v. Ryan (7-2, Opinion by Justice Kennedy, on March 20, 2012) Messerschmidt v. Millender (6-3, on February 22, 2012) Minneci v. Pollard (8-1, opinion by Justice Breyer, on January 10, 2012) Missouri v. Frye (5-4, Opinion by Justice Kennedy, on March 21, 2012) Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority (9-0, Opinion by Justice Sotomayor, on April 18, 2012) Perry v. New Hampshire (8-1, opinion by Justice Ginsburg, on January 11, 2012) Rehberg v. Paulk (9-0, Opinion by Justice Alito, on April 2, 2012) Setser V. United States (6-3, Opinion by Justice Scalia, on March 28, 2012) Smith v. Cain (8-1, opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, on January 10, 2012) Vartelas v. Holder (6-3, Opinion by Justice Ginsberg, on March 28, 2012) Wetzel v. Lambert (6-3, per curiam opinion, on February 21, 2012) Wood v. Milyard (9-0, Opinion by Justice Ginsburg, on April 24, 2012)
- _delirium 14y agoThis one wasn't a traditional liberal/conservative split, though, so if it's ideological, it's on a different axis. The majority opinion was Scalia/Thomas/Ginsburg/Breyer/Souter, i.e. 2 conservatives and 3 liberals. The dissent was Stevens/Rehnquist/O'Connor/Kennedy, i.e a liberal, a conservative, and two moderate conservatives.
- granfalloon 14y agodpeck, keep in mind that the "ideologies" aren't always straight-forward...scalia authored the majority opinion in the heat-sensor case
- mistercow 14y ago>That's a very narrow victory though. Yes, but at least three major parts of the dissenting opinion do not apply to backscatter machines. First, Justice Stevens argued that heat emissions can easily be detected by the general public by a variety of means that do not involve special equipment. Secondly, he argued that heat emissions are a part of the public domain once they leave the home, and are therefore fair game for inspection. Finally, he argued that because the data provided by the sensors was incredibly crude, and gave no specific details about the home's contents, their use did not constitute a search. And while I disagree on the whole, all of those are at least reasonable points that a sane person could make regarding IR sensors. But they utterly disintegrate if you switch to talking about firing x-rays into someone's home or car and generating a detailed image of its contents.
- joering2 14y agoHow long before they will start selling a lead-based shields to cover your entire house (inside) in order to protect yourself, your body and your family (even your dog) against all those invasive red/infrared/long/short waves that government is about to shoot at your house, without probable cause, just because they can. I can see an eager SWAT team ready to raid that family house on the corner because since they have those shields they must be terrorist, or at least doing something illegal!