3 ms·
The judgement in Riley was very fact-specific and was reached only because O'Connor felt the respondent failed to meet what she viewed as the proper burden of p
by nknighthb 13y ago
The judgement in Riley was very fact-specific and was reached only because O'Connor felt the respondent failed to meet what she viewed as the proper burden of proof. There was no majority opinion, and no support by a majority of justices for the sweeping conclusion you draw from it.
- diminoten 13y agoWhat sweeping conclusion? That no law was broken? That's hardly a sweeping conclusion, considering that's exactly what happened.
- lotso 13y agoHonestly curious, but the "sweeping conclusion" I'm drawing is either that this i legal. According to this ruling (regardless of the fact that there was no majority opinion), am is it true that what the FBI is doing is legal?