3 ms·

You're stating as fact that the third party doctrine means there is no expectation of privacy and that Jones doesn't apply, but then you link to an article abou

by guelo 13y ago

You're stating as fact that the third party doctrine means there is no expectation of privacy and that Jones doesn't apply, but then you link to an article about Sotamayor specifically casting doubt on that argument as part of the Jones deliberations. Also, I find annoying the conservative conceit that when conservative judges knock down decades of established jurisprudence as in the campaign finance or the Voting Rights Act decisions they're not being "activist".

hga 13y ago
Except of course the "conservative judges" did nothing of the sort. Unless you consider 21 years to be "decades" in the first case. The latter only said, per Wikipedia: "In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the United States Supreme Court struck down Section 4(b) of the Act, which contains the coverage formula that determines which state and local jurisdictions are subject to Section 5 preclearance, as unconstitutional. The Court said that although the formula was rational and necessary at the time of its enactment, it is no longer responsive to current conditions." Presumably the Congress could enact a new formula that's not based on the racial politics of half a century ago; you're complaining about something akin to rotten boroughs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotten_and_pocket_boroughs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotten_and_pocket_boroughs). You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
rayiner 13y ago
The first part of the quoted section of her concurrence is: "More fundamentally, it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties." (emphasis added) This is not Sotomayor "casting doubt on that argument." It's Sotomayor conceding the argument while wondering out loud whether the third party doctrine needs to be revisited. There's a big difference between a concurrence that says: "I think this other interpretation is the accepted one" and one that says "I understand that this is the currently accepted interpretation, but I think we need to revisit it." > conservative judges knock down decades of established jurisprudence as in the campaign finance or the Voting Rights Act decisions they're not being "activist". I didn't say that conservative judges weren't activist. I said that accusations of activism have forced all judges into making tighter, narrower legal arguments. Gone are the days when judges would wax philosophical about justice and social policy.
kbolino 13y ago
The conservative, and sometimes liberal, decrying of "activist judges" has always been foolhardy short-sightedness. If judges didn't have the power to strike down laws, there would be no purpose for them to review laws in the first place.

by guelo 13y ago

hga 13y ago

Except of course the "conservative judges" did nothing of the sort. Unless you consider 21 years to be "decades" in the first case. The latter only said, per Wikipedia: "In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the United States Supreme Court struck down Section 4(b) of the Act, which contains the coverage formula that determines which state and local jurisdictions are subject to Section 5 preclearance, as unconstitutional. The Court said that although the formula was rational and necessary at the time of its enactment, it is no longer responsive to current conditions." Presumably the Congress could enact a new formula that's not based on the racial politics of half a century ago; you're complaining about something akin to rotten boroughs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotten_and_pocket_boroughs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotten_and_pocket_boroughs). You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

rayiner 13y ago

The first part of the quoted section of her concurrence is: "More fundamentally, it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties." (emphasis added) This is not Sotomayor "casting doubt on that argument." It's Sotomayor conceding the argument while wondering out loud whether the third party doctrine needs to be revisited. There's a big difference between a concurrence that says: "I think this other interpretation is the accepted one" and one that says "I understand that this is the currently accepted interpretation, but I think we need to revisit it." > conservative judges knock down decades of established jurisprudence as in the campaign finance or the Voting Rights Act decisions they're not being "activist". I didn't say that conservative judges weren't activist. I said that accusations of activism have forced all judges into making tighter, narrower legal arguments. Gone are the days when judges would wax philosophical about justice and social policy.

kbolino 13y ago

The conservative, and sometimes liberal, decrying of "activist judges" has always been foolhardy short-sightedness. If judges didn't have the power to strike down laws, there would be no purpose for them to review laws in the first place.