> What I meant is that both the concurring opinions (signed by 5 collectively) agreed on this same point: [...] I agree with you that the two concurrences are

> What I meant is that both the concurring opinions (signed by 5 collectively) agreed on this same point: [...] I agree with you that the two concurrences are aligned about this. Interestingly, it did not make it into the majority opinion, even though there was a majority on this point. It probably wasn't included because it wasn't needed in order to reverse the lower court's decision; the physical violation was enough to merit a unanimous decision. > ample attitude is warranted against people not just advocating for unbounded state surveillance, but insisting that it is already a foregone conclusion. No, it isn't. It is possible, and better, to disagree with someone while remaining courteous--even on subjects you have strong feelings about. From our Guidelines: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.