"We don’t know what we’ll find. The surveillance court may be strictly adhering to the limits of the Fourth Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Or no

"We don’t know what we’ll find. The surveillance court may be strictly adhering to the limits of the Fourth Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Or not. And that’s the problem: This court has morphed into an odd hybrid that seems to exist outside the justice system, even as its power grows in ways that we can’t see." Don't forget the argument from the other day, though. The Fourth Amendment specifically outlines the use of a "reasonableness" test. If it seems reasonable to the average man, it's probably okay. Without anybody knowing what's going on, however, there is no common man to check with to see if the government is acting in a reasonable way. Therefore for all intents and purposes there are no limits, aside from precedent, which is wonderfully flexible given the right semantic nudging.